PETITIONER:
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
B.T. KAMPANNA
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2361 1977 SCR (1) 269
1976 SCC (3) 716
ACT
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Ss. 107 and
133--Whether applicable to land unauthorisedly held after
expiry of lease.
HEADNOTE
The respondent took the disputed land on lease for 5
years from the appellant Corporation, and held it unautho-
risedly after the lease-period expired. His suit for a
permanent injunction against interference with his posses-
sion, was dismissed, and his appeal rejected. The appellant
then instituted the suit in appeal, claiming possession.
The suit was decreed and the respondent was directed to
deliver possession. On appeal, the High Court remanded the
case. Upon remand, the respondent applied for an amendment
of his written statement, claiming protection under the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He also applied for a stay
of the suit by the Civil Court, and for a reference to the
Tribunal for deciding whether he was a tenant or not. The
application was dismissed, but on revision, the High Court
reversed the decision. The principal question in appeal
before this Court was whether S. 107 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961, was applicable to the disputed land held
by the respondent.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 makes it . quite clear that the only provision which
applies to lands belonging to or held on lease or from a
local authority is section 8. There is no dispute that the
lease was determined by efflux of time. The question wheth-
er the respondent is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does
not arise because the tenancy came ’to an end. Section 8 is
not applicable. Therefore no question can be referred for
determination by the Tribunal under section 133. Section
133 cannot apply where the lease had expired and the local
authority sues for possession on the ground that there is
unauthorised occupation. [271 D, E, F, 272 C]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 623 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-6-74 of the Karna-
taka ’High Court in Civil Revision No 1981/73.
S.S. JavaIi and B.P. Singh, for the Appellants.
S.V. Gupte and K.N. Bhatt, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.--This appeal by special leave is from the
judgment .dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court.
The principal question in this appeal whether section
107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the
land in suit which was leased to the respondent.
A large plot of land comprising an area of about 20
acres popularly known as "The Chamaraja Sewage Farm" situate
in the city of Bangalore belongs to the appellant Corpora-
tion. The appellant :leased to the respondent by a regis-
tered lease dated 14 September,
270
1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an
annual rent of Rs. 13,555/-. The respondent by notice was
called upon to hand over possession of the land immediately
after the expiry of the period of lease. The respondent
failed to deliver possession. The reason why the appellant
required that land is that the Corporation proposed a scheme
for the development and construction of a new township on
that area.
The respondent filed a suit for the grant of a permanent
injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with
the possession. The Court upheld the contentions of the
appellant that the lease had terminated by efflux of time.
The respondent’s ’suit was dismissed. An appeal was pre-
ferred. The appeal was dismissed on 21 August,. 1964.
The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claim-
ing possession from the respondent. The appellant contended
that the respondent was a trespasser and claimed damages for
unauthorised occupation. The respondent contended that he
was still a tenant. The respondent claimed protection under
the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act,
1961 being Act No. 15 of 1961. Section 3 of the Mysore
Tenants (Temporary Protection from Evic-. tion) Act, 1961
provided for prohibition against eviction.
The appellant obtained a decree in the suit. The decree
directed the respondent to deliver possession. The respond-
ent preferred an’ appeal. The High Court remanded the
matter to the trial Court for assessment of damages.
Upon remand the respondent applied for the amendment of
the written statement. The respondent claimed protection
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It may be
stated here that the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection
from Eviction) Act, 1961 ceased to be in force in March,
1966. That is perhaps why the respondent made an applica-
tion for amendment of the written statement on 2 February
1973. The respondent contended relying on section 133 of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that the. suit should
be stayed by the civil court and should be referred to the
Tribunal for decision. Section 112(B)(b) of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 confers power on the Tribunal to
decide inter alia whether a person is a tenant or not. The
respondent contended that he was a person who was deemed to
be a tenant.
The appellant opposed the application for stay of the
suit by the civil court and referring to the Tribunal for
decision under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The
trial Court held that the land’ belonging to the appellant
was exempted from the application of the provisions of the
Land Reforms Act. The trial Court dismissed the application
of the respondent.
The respondent presented a revision petition t0 the High
Court. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial
Court and directed the trial Court to refer such of the
issues which are required to be. decided by the Tribunal.
271
Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent
is a tenant within the meaning of the word "tenant" defined
in section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
"Tenant" is defined to mean an agriculturist who cultivates
personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and
includes (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under
section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 states that a person
lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person
shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivat-
ed personally by the owner and if such person is not (a) a
member of the owner’s family, or (b) a servant or a hired
labourer on wages, or (c) a mortgage in possession It was,
therefore, said that the respondent could raise the con-
tention whether the respondent was a tenant or not. It was
next contended that section 8 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 speaks of rent and rent is referable to tenant and
therefore a dispute as to tenancy would be within the ambit
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
states that subject to the provisions of section 110 nothing
in this Act, except section 8 shall apply to lands, inter
alia (iii) belonging to or held on lease or from a local
authority. There is no dispute that the land was given on
lease by the local authority. There is also no ’dispute
that the land belongs to the local authority. There is also
no dispute that the lease was detrmined by efflux of time.
The question whether the respondent is a tenant or deemed to
be a tenant does not at all arise because the tenancy came
to an end. The ’respondent thereafter was a trespasser.
Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
makes it quite clear that the only provision which applies,
inter alia, to lands belonging to or hold on lease or from a
local authority is section 8. No other section of the Land
Reforms Act applies to these lands. Section 8 of the Karna-
taka Land Reforms Act, 1961 deals with rent. The suit in the
present case was not for recovery of rent. The suit is for
recovery of possession and for damages, for unauthorised
occupation of the respondent. Section 2 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 is not applicable. Therefore, no
question can be referred for determination by the Tribunal
under section 133.
The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction)
Act, 1961 came into effect on 13 December, 1961. The Mysore
Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961
remained in force till the month of March, 1966. The re-
spondent could not draw any support from that Act for pro-
tection against eviction. The land in question was outside
the applicability of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protec-
tion from Eviction) Act, 1961. Further the Act ceased to be
in operation in 1966 and no question could be referred for
determination as to whether the respondent was a tenant
under the Mysore Tenants (Temporary-Protection from Evic-
tion) Act, 1961 or not. The trial Court in the present case
rightly said that it could not be said that there was any
dispute as to tenancy.
272
The respondent had filed a suit where he claimed to remain
in possession. The suit of the respondent was dismissed.
The appellant all along contended that the lease dated 14
September 1963 for a period of 5 years expired by efflux of
time. The appellant claimed possession on the ground Of
unauthorised occupation and claimed damages against the
respondent, who was a trespasser.
The High Court was clearly in error in referring to the
Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 determi-
nation of the plea taken by the respondent that he was pro-
tected by the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from
Eviction) Act 1961. Counsel for the respondent did not
support the judgment on that ground.
Counsel for the respondent contended that section 133 of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 excludes jurisdiction
of Civil court in suits for possession where the defendant
claims to be a tenant. The plea of the respondent is
utterly unsound. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act 1961 cannot apply to lands which are held by a person on
lease from the local authority or where the lease had ex-
pired and the local authority sues for possession on the
ground that there is unauthorised occupation. No provision
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act can be relied upon to
contend that there should be protection against recovery of
possession by the local authority.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court
is set aside. In view of the fact that no costs were al-
lowed by the High Court, there will be no order as to costs.
M.R. Appeal
allowed.
273