BHARTU versus RANDHIR SINGH & ORS.

BHARTU versus RANDHIR SINGH & ORS.

Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, must be understood as permitting termination of tenancies commenced after the amendment independently on expiry of the minimum period of three years, as well as on the general grounds provided under section 7. To construe otherwise would result in absurd anomalies and is not permissible. The consistent view taken by the Punjab High Court over the years is correct and is affirmed.

Parties
Appellant: Bhartu; Respondents: Randhir Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 January 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Letters Patent Appeal No. 226 of 1970
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Tenancy, Interpretation of Statutes, Agricultural Tenancy, Grounds for Eviction
Land Law Tenancy Law Termination of Tenancy Interpretation of Statutes Agricultural Tenancy Grounds for Eviction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhartu

Appellant

Randhir Singh & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Letters Patent Appeal No. 226 of 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, in the case of tenancies commencing after the enactment, the expiry of the minimum term of three years under section 8 is an additional ground for termination of tenancy, or whether the grounds enumerated in section 7 alone are available for such termination.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, must be understood as permitting termination of tenancies commenced after the amendment independently on expiry of the minimum period of three years, as well as on the general grounds provided under section 7. To construe otherwise would result in absurd anomalies and is not permissible. The consistent view taken by the Punjab High Court over the years is correct and is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded.