1984 (7) TMI 396 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of civil court in possession suit for agricultural lands, applicability of limitation period u/s 50 of Punjab Tenancy Act to application u/s 43 of Pepsu Tenancy Act.

In the present case, the appellant, a tenant of agricultural lands, was dispossessed by landlords and filed a suit for possession in a civil court. The civil court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction, stating that suits for possession of agricultural lands must be filed before the Collector u/s Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application u/s 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act for possession, which was initially dismissed by the Collector on the grounds of being time-barred u/s 50 of Punjab Tenancy Act. The matter went through various appeals and revisions, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Upon hearing the case, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to explain how the provisions of Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act apply to proceedings u/s 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act. The respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading the Court to emphasize the lack of reasoning in their response. The Commissioner of Patiala Division had earlier held that since the Pepsu Tenancy Act does not prescribe a limitation period for filing a petition u/s 43, the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act cannot be applied to it. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, stating that without a specific provision in the Pepsu Tenancy Act incorporating the Punjab Tenancy Act, the latter cannot be imposed on proceedings under the former.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the Collector for a decision on the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for an expeditious resolution due to the prolonged pendency of the matter. The appeal was disposed of with the appellant being awarded costs from the respondent-landlords.