Gair Maurusi Without Rent Is Not Tenancy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Pre-emption, Protects Possession

“Tenancy cannot be presumed from possession alone — it is a legal relationship requiring proof of rent or agreement,” holds Justice Deepak Gupta while affirming that possession is protected, but tenancy is not proved

On January 22, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a long-pending second appeal filed by Shyam Lal, who had sought to assert a right of pre-emption over agricultural land on the basis that he was a tenant in possession. In a sharply reasoned judgment Justice Deepak Gupta clarified that mere entries of possession as gair maurusi without payment of rent cannot establish tenancy, and further held that no right of pre-emption survives when the land falls within municipal limits.

The appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by Shyam Lal in the year 1992, seeking to challenge the sale deed dated 04.03.1992 executed by his co-sharer Jagdish Lal in favour of Hem Raj (defendant no. 1). Claiming that he had been in cultivating possession for over 25 years and had constructed houses and planted mango trees on the land, the plaintiff asserted a superior right of purchase under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

However, the High Court, affirming the decision of the First Appellate Court, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove tenancy, and observed that:

“Tenancy is a bilateral legal relationship and cannot be inferred merely from possession… The consistent absence of any entry regarding rent, the lack of pleadings and proof regarding creation of tenancy, and the settled legal position that possession simpliciter does not establish tenancy, fully justify the conclusion reached by the First Appellate Court.”

The appellate court had reversed the trial court’s finding on tenancy, and Justice Gupta found no fault with its approach. The revenue record from 1956-57 onward was examined, and the plaintiff’s possession was consistently shown as gair maurusi, with the explanation “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan”—meaning in possession without rent, on account of construction.

The High Court noted that there was no lease deed, no rent receipt, no evidence of rent being paid, and even no clear pleading in the plaint indicating when and how the alleged tenancy was created. During trial, the plaintiff attempted to claim that he was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat at a nominal rent, but the Court refused to entertain such an argument, stating:

“Such evidence, being beyond pleadings, was correctly excluded from consideration in consonance with the settled principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not pleaded.”

The plaintiff had also relied on an earlier civil court judgment dated 07.10.1982, in which he claimed his tenancy was recognised. But the High Court clarified that the defendants in the present suit were not parties to that case, and therefore the earlier judgment did not bind them, nor did it conclusively adjudicate the nature of possession.

At the heart of the case was the question whether a person shown as gair maurusi without rent in revenue records could claim to be a tenant. Justice Gupta categorically rejected that proposition, observing:

“Tenancy, being a legal relationship, must be supported by cogent evidence — rent payment, agreement, or acknowledgment by the landlord. None of these were produced.”

The plaintiff’s suit for pre-emption had also been held non-maintainable because, by the time of sale, the land in question had been included within the municipal limits of Safidon, as per notification Ex.D3, which extinguished rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act.

However, the Court did safeguard the plaintiff’s existing possession. Though his tenancy claim failed, the Court upheld that a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly evicted, and concluded:

“The plaintiff is in established possession of the suit land, though not proved to be a tenant thereon, and he can be dispossessed only in accordance with law.”

As for the Contempt Petition (COCP No. 3975 of 2018) filed during the pendency of litigation, the same was dismissed as not pressed during arguments.

In dismissing the second appeal, Justice Gupta made it clear that the findings of the First Appellate Court were neither perverse nor legally flawed, and that:

“In a second appeal, interference is permissible only when substantial questions of law arise. The findings recorded... are based on correct appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law.”

With this decision, the Court has once again reaffirmed the principle that tenancy must be proved — not presumed — and that pre-emption rights cannot be sustained in urbanised areas or on the strength of bare possession without legal foundation.

Date of Decision: January 22, 2026