1. Ejectment suit for personal cultivation — Tenancy determined prior to enactment of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code — Claim for occupancy tenant status under Section 185. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Rao Nihalkaran, Appellant
Verasus
Ram Gopal, Respondent.
1.Mohinder Singh, 2. Rao Nihalkaran, Interveners.
Civil Appeal No. 365 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate for Respondent; M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar, G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates for Intervener No. 1; M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Intervener No. 2.
Advocates:
A.C.RATNAPARKHI, B.DUTTA, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.B.AGARWAL, G.L.SANGHI, J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan
A.C.RATNAPARKHI, B.DUTTA, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.B.AGARWAL, G.L.SANGHI, J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan
A person in possession of land at the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, qualifies as an occupancy tenant under Section 185, even if their contractual tenancy was previously terminated, as the statutory grant of status depends on possession rather than a subsisting contract.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 185(1)(ii)(a) - Section 2(y) - Section 261 - Section 262(2) - Meaning of "tenant" - Acquisition of occupancy rights - Whether a person whose tenancy was determined prior to the commencement of the Code can be termed a "tenant" for the purpose of becoming an occupancy tenant - The expression "tenant" in Section 185(1)(ii)(a), having regard to the object of the enactment, includes a person who continued to hold the land at the commencement of the Code, notwithstanding that the contractual relation was determined under the law in force prior to the commencement of the Code (Paras 6, 8, 10) - The definition of "tenant" in Section 2(y) is not intended to apply in determining the conditions which invest a holder of land with the status of an occupancy tenant at the commencement of the Code (Para 8).
(B) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 261 and 262(2) - Pending proceedings for ejectment - Effect of repeal and transitory provisions - The proviso to Section 261 protects rights acquired under the repealed law; since the right to evict a tenant is governed by general law and not the repealed Act, the proviso has no operation to prevent the application of the Code to pending proceedings (Para 12) - Section 262(2) is a procedural provision enabling Civil Courts to dispose of pending suits and does not nullify the statutory conferment of occupancy rights upon tenants (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
A landlord initiated ejectment proceedings against a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation. During the pendency of the appeal, protective legislation was enacted, staying the proceedings. Subsequently, a comprehensive land revenue code came into force. The tenant claimed the status of an occupancy tenant under the new Code, which would preclude ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. The lower courts ruled in favor of the tenant, holding that the status of an occupancy tenant was acquired despite the prior termination of the contractual tenancy.
Findings of Court:
The expression "tenant" within the meaning of Section 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Code includes a person whose tenancy stood determined before the commencement of the Code, provided they remained in possession. The procedural provisions regarding pending suits in Civil Courts do not override the substantive statutory grant of occupancy rights.
Issues: Whether the term "tenant" in Section 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Code includes a person whose contractual tenancy was determined before the Code's commencement, and whether pending ejectment proceedings are exempt from the operation of the statutory grant of occupancy rights under the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of "tenant" in Section 2(y) does not apply to Section 185 as the latter deals with the initial investment of status. Legislative intent, evidenced by previous protective acts, indicates that possession was the key criterion, not a subsisting contract. Furthermore, the right to evict is based on general law, not the repealed statutes, and procedural transitory provisions cannot nullify substantive statutory rights conferred by the Code.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 185 requires a subsisting contractual relation at the Code's commencement or if pending ejectment proceedings are excluded by Section 262(2). (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The term tenant includes persons in possession despite determined contracts, aligning with previous protective legislation to avoid rendering statutory provisions ineffective. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Statutory conferment of occupancy rights under Section 185 applies to persons holding land at the Code's commencement, regardless of whether the contractual tenancy was previously determined. (Para 8 , 10 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed; decree of the High Court confirmed. (Para 14 )
6. Does the expression tenant in Section 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code require a subsisting contractual relation at the time of the Code's commencement?
No. In the context of Section 185 and the object of the enactment, tenant includes persons who continued to hold the land at the commencement of the Code, even if their contractual relation had been determined prior to that date. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
7. Does Section 262(2) of the Code, which directs pending civil suits to be disposed of according to the law in force prior to the Code, nullify the conferment of occupancy rights?
No. Section 262(2) is a procedural transitory provision ensuring Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over pending suits; it does not nullify the statutory conferment of occupancy rights under Section 185 upon eligible tenants. (Para 13 )
8. Does the proviso to Section 261 protect a landlord's right to eject a tenant if that right accrued before the Code's commencement?
No, because the right to evict a tenant was governed by general landlord-tenant law, not the specific laws repealed by Section 261. Therefore, the proceeding is disposed of according to the law in force at the time of trial. (Para 12 )
9. How should the term ryotwari sub-lessee under Section 185(1)(ii)(b) be interpreted regarding terminated sub-leases?
It must include persons whose contractual relations were determined by contract or statute, otherwise the provision would be ineffective as most sub-leases had already terminated by the time the Code was enacted. (Para 9 , 10 )
Judgement
SHAH, J.: Ramgopal-respondent in this appeal-was a tenant of certain Inam land situate in village Nanda Panth in Indore tahsil. The appellant Rao Nihalkaran - holder of the Inam-served a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground that he needed the land for personal cultivation, and commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, on July 21, 1950, against Ramgopal for a decree in ejectment. The Trial Court decreed the suit During the pendency of the appeal to the District Court, Indore by Ramgopal against the decree MADHYA BHARAT MUAFI AND INAM TENANTS AND SUB-TENANTS PROTECTION ACT 32 of 1954 was enacted, and pursuant to the provisions thereof hearing of the appeal remained stayed till 1960. In the mean time the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of 1959) was brought into force. Ramgopal urged before the District Court that he had by virtue of S. 185 of the Code acquired rights of an occupancy tenant and the appellant s right to obtain an order in ejectment on the ground set up must be refused. The District Judge accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the appeal. Against the decree passed by the District Court, Indore the appellant appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. Following their judgment in Rao Nihalkaran v. Ramchandra , L. P. No. 14 of 1961, dated 24-9-1962 (Madh Pra), the High Court confirmed the decree of the District Judge, and dismissed the appeal. With special leave granted by this Court, this appeal has been preferred.
2. The dispute in the appeal centres round the meaning of the expression "tenant used in S. 185 (1), Cl. (ii)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The material part of the clause reads:
"Every person who at the coming into force of this Code holds-
(i) xx xx xx xx
(ii) in the Madhya Bharat region-
(a) any Inam land as a tenant, or as a sub-tenant or as an ordinary tenant;
shall be called an occupancy tenant, and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an occupancy tenant by or under this Code. It is common ground that the tenancy of an occupancy tenant may be determined under S. 193 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code by an order of the sub-Divisional Officer on the grounds specified in that section, and personal requirement of the landlord is not one of such grounds. But counsel for the appellant urged that the rights of an occupancy tenant arise in favour of a person under S. 185(1), Cl. (ii)(a) only if there is between him and the claimant to the land a subsisting relation under which he holds land as a tenant at the date when the Code came into force. The Code has, it is said, no retrospective operation, and the person who under the law in force before the commencement of the Code had ceased to be a tenant because of termination of the contract between him and the landlord is not invested with the rights of an occupancy tenant under S. 185(1)(ii)(a). In the alternative it is contended that by virtue of S. 261 and S. 262 (2), operation of S. 185 is expressly excluded, when a person against whom proceedings have been instituted prior to the commencement of the Code for a decree in ejectment in enforcement of a right acquired under the law then in force, claims the status of an occupancy tenant.
3. The District Court held that the expression "tenant within the meaning of S. 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Code includes a person whose tenancy stood determined before the commencement of the Code, and with that view the High Court agreed. Counsel for the appellant complained that in reaching this conclusion, the Courts below ignored the definition in S. 2 (y) of the Code that the expression "tenant means a person holding land from a Bhumiswami as an occupancy tenant under Ch. XIV, and said that a person qua whom the contractual relation under which he was inducted as a tenant was determined prior to the commencement of the Code is not a tenant within the meaning of S. 185 (1)
