Back
Judges : RADHAKRISHNA MENON
M.D.SEMINARY - Appellant
Versus
P.J.JOHN - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 482, 485 etc. of 1984
Decided On : 09/19/1987
Advocates Appeared :
K.C. John; For Petitioner V.O. John; Joseph J. Therattil; P.C. Iype; Government Pleader; For Respondents
KLR Act - Cultivating Tenants - S.72B, S.4A, S.2(57), S.2(8), S.2(7), S.10 - The court discussed the applicability of the KLR Act to non-agricultural lands and the rights of tenants to fixity of tenure. It interpreted the definition of cultivating tenants and the criteria for entitlement to benefits under S.72B. The court also considered the distinction between licenses and leases and the implications of S.10 deeming licensees as tenants.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants claimed to be cultivating tenants and applied for purchase of landlord's interest under S.72B of the KLR Act. The landowner disputed the nature of the holdings and contended that the lands were not agricultural, and the transactions were licenses, not leases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands were non-agricultural and the tenants did not qualify as cultivating tenants under S.72B. It held that the tenants were not entitled to the benefits provided for under S.72B.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the holdings, the distinction between licenses and leases, and the entitlement of tenants to benefits under S.72B of the KLR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the KLR Act, including S.4A, S.2(57), S.2(8), S.2(7), and S.10, to determine the rights of tenants and the applicability of the Act to non-agricultural lands. It emphasized the criteria for defining cultivating tenants and the implications of deeming licensees as tenants under S.10.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders allowing the tenants' applications under S.72B, concluding that the tenants were not entitled to the benefits as they did not meet the criteria of cultivating tenants under the KLR Act.
1. The questions arising for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions are identical and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Respondents in these revision petitions, except the State of Kerala, claiming themselves to be cultivating tenants, filed applications under S.72B of the KLR Act for the purchase of the right, title and interest of the landlord in respect of the respective holdings held by them. The Land Tribunal entering the finding that they are cultivating tenants, allowed the applications. The Appellate Authority concurred with the above finding of the Land Tribunal and as a result of which, the appeals filed by the landowner were dismissed by the orders under challenge in the revision petitions.
3. Facts essential to decide the questions lie in a narrow compass; and virtually, they are admitted: The holdings are held under written documents, styled as verumpattam deeds. The deeds, according to the tenants, evidence transactions creating tenancies. The landowner however, contends that they create only licences. The landowner has a further case that the lands involved in the cases, are not agricultural lands and hence the provisions of the KLR Act are not applicable to them.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three points.
(i) The lands involved in the cases are not agricultural lands and hence the holders of these lands cannot be said to be cultivating tenants entitled to the benefit of S.72B of the KLR Act.
(ii) The transactions evidenced by the deeds, are only licenses and not leases, and
(iii) The holders are not cultivating the lands involved in the cases.
Regarding point No. (i): It is not disputed that the lands involved in the cases are situated within the Kottayam Municipality. That these lands are interspersed between sites with buildings which can be used for purposes of commerce and also house sites without or with buildings meant for human occupation, is beyond challenge. Such lands, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT 411) (SC) cannot be said to be lands meant to settle landless persons in implementation of agrarian reform, the main object with which the KLR Act has been enacted. Relying on this ruling, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the holders of these lands, even assuming they are lessees and not licensees, are not entitled even to fixity of tenure. In this connection, it is profitable to note that the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider this aspect of the case. This argument of the counsel for the petitioners at the first blush is attractive, but a deep probe into the question would show that the said argument is without any legal foundation. A reference in this connection to a Full Bench decision of this Court is relevant. In the said ruling in Parameswaran Pillai v. Narayanan Nair (1976 KLT 341 FB) after considering the scope of the various provisions of the KLR Act governing the claims of tenants for fixity of tenure, the Full Bench has held that the Act in some respects atleast applies to lands situated in Corporations or Municipalities also. The Full Bench was considering the scope of S.4A conferring fixity of tenure on mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees mentioned therein. Provisions similar to S.4A protect the claims, for fixity of tenure, of the tenants not only of agricultural lands but also of non-agricultural lands and accordingly the Full Bench observed: "it will be difficult, if not impossible, to construe the Act as a whole as applicable only to lands which are agricultural in nature". The Full Bench further stated "the expression 'land' therein (S.4A) must normally take in all lands irrespective of where it is situate and for what purpose it is used and irrespective of its nature".
5. The above principle notwithstanding, the argument advanced on behalf of the landlord before the Full Bench was that S.4A must be given a limited meaning in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
