JUDGMENT

RAY, C.J.I. :—This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court.

2. The principal question in this appeal (is) whether Sec. 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which was leased to the respondent.

3. A large plot of land comprising an area of about 20 acres popularly known as "The Chammaraja Sewage Farm situate in the city of Bangalore belongs to the appellant Corporation. The appellant leased to the respondent by a registered lease dated 14 September, 1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rupees 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.

4. 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 respondents; suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed on 21 August, 1964.

5. The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claiming 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 Eviction) Act 1961 provided for a prohibition against eviction.

6. The appellant obtained a decree in the suit. The decree directed the respondents to deliver possession. The respondent preferred an appeal. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for assessment of damages.

7. 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 application 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.

8. 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.

9. The respondent presented a revision petition to 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.

10. Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent is a tenant within the meaning of the word "tenant" defined in Sec. 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 S.4 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 in not cultivated per