1994 PLP 1250 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act under which the proceedings were instituted by the respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) against appellant was at all attracted to the case, as the appellant was claiming to be a lessee occupying the land with the consent and permission of the landlord who happened to be the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that a sale of the disputed land measuring about 16 Kanals took place somewhere in 1981‑82, the date having not been brought on record with particularity. It was subjected to a pre emption claim by the respondent. He succeeded in obtaining a decree on 16‑6‑1985. and a mutation was duly attested in accordance with it on 26‑10‑1985. The vendee in it against whom the respondent succeeded was no other than a son of the appellant himself. The possession of the land was physically taken by the decree‑holder on 27‑7‑1986. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent claiming damages of over Rs.15,000 on the basis that the crop cultivated by him on the land was destroyed. It failed and was not pursued further. When the respondent sued him under section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act for occupying the land as trespasser claiming damages from him for such occupation in the sum of Rs.19,840 for Kharif 1985 and Rabi 1986, the appellant took up the plea that he was inducted on the land as a lessee at the rate of Rs.2,000 per year for the period 1984 to 1988 and he had paid the entire lease money to Inayat Khan. He therefore, claimed that his possession was not of trespasser but of a lessee under no obligation to pay any amount to the respondent. The Revenue Court which tried the matter recorded a specific finding which appears at page 32 of the paper Book that this was a collusion between the father and son with a view to deprive the decree‑holder of the benefits of his decree. This finding of fact has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner on appeal and by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in revision.

4. The learned Judge in the High Court refused to interfere with the finding recorded as there was no documentary evidence brought before him to show that in fact such an occupation was bona fide and on payment of the amount of lease‑money.

5. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that according to the admission of the respondent himself no case was made out for proceedings against the appellant under section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The lease was established and admitted, and the occupation of the appellant was not that of a trespasser.

6. Looking to all the facts of the case starting from the sale, the pre emption suit, the decree and execution of decree and the claims and the counter claims filed, it is clear that the trial Court has correctly recorded a finding that it was a collusion between the son and the father to deprive the respondent of the fruits of the litigation. The appellant having known all through that the suit was pending, that the decree was passed and the possession had been delivered, could not obtain on lease the land and thereby claim an independent right to continue in possession for a period beyond the decree and delivery of possession on the strength of such a claim. The claim is clearly dishonest and had to be rejected and has rightly been rejected.

7. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./D‑101/S Appeal dismissed.