The petitioner qualified as a deemed tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and his rights as a deemed tenant were protected despite entering into an agreement to sell the land.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's writ petition challenging the order passed by the land Tribunal, rejecting his application filed in form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the 1961 (10 of 1962), Ss. 4 (b) and 39 (2) land comprised in Sy. No. 80/1 of mugalkhed village in Mudhol taluk.

( 2 ) THE petitioner applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. The Land Tribunal, as required by law, got the notices served on the interested parties and held enquiry, examined the parties. Upon consideration of the evidence, the land Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner did not cultivate the land as a tenant and in that view of the matter rejected his application filed in form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as disclosed from the records are that the petitioner cultivated the land on the basis of a 'badige Kararu' (agreement of hired labour) during the year 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. He entered into an agreement to purchase the land for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 in the year 1968-69 and had paid an advance of Rs. 2,000 to the 3rd respondent. His name came to be entered in the record of rights and pahanis right from the year 1968-69 as tenant till 1976-77. The land in question is in the ownership of the 3rd respondent. He resides in gandhi Chowk at Dharwar, a place separated by a distance of 120 miles from where the land is situated.

( 4 ) MR. A. V. Albal, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly, contended that the petitioner had become a deemed tenant under S. 4 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be called the 'act' ). He urged that even prior to the execution of the agreement to sell in the year 1968-69, he was cultivating the land on the so called receipts for labour. He further urged that the petitioner did not cultivate the land under the personal supervision by the 3rd respondent or his wife. He cultivated the land independently. Secondly, he contended that by an agreement of sale, the petitioner was lawfully inducted on the land for cultivating it and if at any point of time the said agreement could not be enforced, the relationship between the petitioner and 3rd respondent would be that of tenant and landlord. Thirdly, he contended that the averment he has made in the writ petition regarding delay was due to his ignorance and illiteracy, and an erroneous statement has crept in to the averments in the writ petition and has requested to take a lenient view of the matter.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. T. S. Ramachandra, learned advocate for the 3rd respondent, contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He pointed out that the petitioner knew the pronouncement of the impugned order dated 10-2-76, in view of the fact that he had stated so in his plaint filed in O. S. No. 51 of 1976. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner who is cultivating the land under an agreement of sale is not entitled to claim to be a deemed tenant. His remedy is one of enforcing specific performance, regarding which he has already filed the aforesaid suit. Lastly, he, contended that the entries in the record of rights do not establish his tenancy, since he cultivated the land under an agreement to sell. Thus he explained the existence of the entries in the record of rights and pahani.

( 6 ) THE questions which arise for decision are: (1) Whether the petitioner is a deemed tenant within the meaning of s. 4 of the Act. (2) Whether the Land Tribunal is justified in rejecting his application on the ground that the petitioner cultivated the land not as a tenant, but under the agreement created between the parties to sell the land to the petitioner.

( 7 ) S. 4 of the Act, says that a, person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (A) a membe