Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, requires actual or lawful possession at the commencement of the Act for protection as a tenant.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been referred to a Bench as it was felt that it raises an important question of law bearing on the interpretation of section 37-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (XXI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The respondent moved the Land Tribunal under section 37-A of the Act, for conferment of protected tenancy in respect of the lands in dispute. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that he was neither in possession of the lands on 12th march, 1956, the date on which section 37-A came into effect, nor was he able to establish that he was a bona fide tenant. On appeal, the Collector remanded the case for spot enquiry and further investigation to the Tribunal. After remand, the tribunal reached the same conclusion and rejected the petition.

( 2 ) THE respondent again carried the matter in appeal to the Collector. The appellate authority while concurring in the opinion of the Tribunal that the respondent had no possession of the properties in question on the relevant date, still held that he was entitled to protection under section 37-A as it was proved that at one time he was in possession of these lands. It is this order of the Collector that is sought to be revised in this petition. The question that falls for determination is whether section 37-A of the Act contemplates actual or lawful possession at the commencement of the Act or possesssion at any time prior to the coming into operation of the Act. At this stage it is convenient to read section 37-A in so far as it has a bearing on this enquiry. Section 37-A reads : " Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who at the commencement of the hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955, holds as tenant any land in respect of which he is not deemed to be a protected tenant under this Act, shall be deemed to be a protected tenant if the total area of the land owned by the landholder including the land under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a family holding for the local area concerned : it is manifest from the language of this section that except in cases of persons who are deemed to be protected tenants, to enable a person to have recourse to that section he should be holding any land as a tenant. Section 34 of the Act enumerates the persons who are deemed to be protected tenants and it is not necessary for us to catalogue them as admittedly the respondent is not one of those mentioned in that section. He falls outside the purview of section 34. Hence he must show that he is a person holding as tenant any land if he is to get the advantage of section 37-A.

( 3 ) THE expression holding as tenant has not been defined in the Act. Section 2 (z) says : " Words and expressions used in this Act but not defined therein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of 1317-F.) " so, we have to look at the definition of holding land in the Hyderabad Land revenue Act and that definition is contained in section 2 (6) of that Act, which is in these words :" to hold land or to be a " landholder " or " holder " of land means to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. "

( 4 ) NOW, could it be said that a person is lawfully in possession of land at the commencement of the Act merely because at sometime anterior to the commencement of the Act he happened to cultivate the land for a short period. Indisputably, the respondent, had no possession, actual or lawful, on the date section 37-A came into effect. The respondent is alleged to have obtained a lease of the lands in question from the original owner on 4th April, 1950, which is said to have been renewed on i5th May, 1954. That lease is of no validity having regard to the terms of section 6 read with section 9 of the Act. There is a general prohibition of leases being made" after three years from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document