1981 Supreme(MP) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(FULL BENCH)
K.K. DUBE, A.R. NAOKAR & S.J. SURANA, JJ.
Sunder (Manila)
Vs.
Prahlad
S.A. No. 86 of 1969
Decided On: 05.01.1981

The sub-tenant would not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant if the disability continues till coming into force of the Code i.e. upto 2-10-1959, the person who granted the sub-lease remains a disabled person and the leases of disabled persons were terminated under section 75 of the Act No. 66 of 1950.

Headnote:

MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959 - S. 185(1)(ii)(b), 185(3), 168(2), 168(5) - MADHYA BHARAT LAND REVENUE AND TENANCY ACT, 1950 - S. 73, 74, 75, 76 - MADHYA BHARAT MUFI AND INAM TENANTS AND SUB-TENANTS PROTECTION ACT, 1954 - MADHYA BHARAT RYOTWARI SUB-LESSEE PROTECTION ACT, 1955 - Whether a sub-tenant continuing to occupy an agricultural holding of a disabled person in pursuance of a lease granted prior to 2-10-1951 in the Madhya Bharat area could claim the status of an occupancy tenant and, consequently, of a Bhumiswami even in such cases where the Bhumiswami continued to be a disabled person even on the date of coming into force of the Code, i.e. 2-10-1959 - Whether even in a case where the lease had been granted before 2-10-1951, the fact of disability continuing on the date of coming into force of the Code, i.e. 2nd October 1959, was determinative about the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 185 - Whether the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 168 of the Code were not applicable to leases granted prior to 2-10-1951 in the Madhya Bharat area which became governed by the provisions of section 75 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 1950 with effect from 2-10-1951 - Whether, despite determination of the lease by virtue of the provisions of section 75 of the M.B. land revenue and tenancy Act 1950 and no fresh lease having been granted when the subtenant can be treated as one lawfully holding the land as a sub-lessee for the purpose of section 185(1) of the Code if he happened to continue in occupation of the land in pursuance of the initial lease he cannot be treated for the purpose of subsection (3) of section 185 as one holding the land on lease from a disabled person on the date of coming into force of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, despite continuance of the disability of the Bhumiswami upto that date and onwards - HELD, answering the questions in the affirmative, that the sub-tenant would not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant if the disability continues till coming into force of the Code i.e. upto 2-10-1959, the person who granted the sub-lease remains a disabled person and the leases of disabled persons were terminated under section 75 of the Act No. 66 of 1950.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-appellant Mahila Sunder was a widow and was holding certain 'Ryotwari' land as Pucca tenant. She would be a disabled person being one in the class of persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 168 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). She granted a lease of her land to defendant-respondent Prahlad. This was prior to coming into force of Act No. 66 of 1950. Under the law existing at that time, there were no restrictions on sub-letting land by a Pucca tenant. The defendant took possession of the land and continued to be in possession upto 1959 when, on 2nd October 1959, the Code came into force. Sunder now brought a suit for a declaration of her Bhumiswami rights and for a decree in ejectment. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that since Sunder was a disabled person, defendant-respondent Prahlad did not acquire occupancy Rights under S. 185 of the Code. The Appellate Court reversed the decree taking a contrary view holding that the impact of various laws would be that the respondent would acquire occupancy rights under S. 185 of the Code. The plaintiff then filed second appeal which came before late Bajpai, J. was of the opinion that the decision in Ramkrishna Das v. Shankarpur wali & others :(1970 RN 577) is in conflict with the Supreme Court decision in Amar Singh v. Balbhadra Singh & others (1966 RN 477= 1966 JLJ 73). It was also pointed out that the decision in Ramkishna Das' case (supra) is in conflict with the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Gajrqj Singh v. Jagatsingh 1970 RN 133. The following questions were referred--

Finding of the Court:

1. Whether a sub-tenant continuing to occupy an agricultural holding of a disabled person in pursuance of a lease granted prior to 2-10-1951 in the Madhya Bharat area could claim the status of an occupancy tenant and, consequently, of a Bhumi-swami even in such cases where the Bhumiswami continued to be a disabled person even on the date of coming into force of the Code i.e. 2-10-1959? 2. Whether even in a case where the lease had been granted before 2-10-1951, the fact of disability continuing on the date of coming into force of the Code, i.e., 2nd October 1959, was determinative about the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 185 ? 3. Whether the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 168 of the Code were not applicable to leases granted prior to 2-10-1951 in the Madhya Bharat area which became governed by the provisions of section 75 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 with effect from 2-10-1961 ? 4. Whether, dispite determination of the lease by virtue of the pro-Visions of section 75 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, and no fresh lease having been granted when the sub-tenant can be treated as one lawfully holding the land as a sub-lessee for the purposes of section 185(1) of the Code if he happened to continue in occupation of the land in pursuance of the initial lease he cannot be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 185 as one holding the land on lease from a disabled person on the date of coming into force of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, despite continuance of the disability of the Bhumiswami upto that date and onwards ?

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the sub-tenant would not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant if the disability continues till coming into force of the Code i.e. upto 2-10-1959, the person who granted the sub-lease remains a disabled person and the leases of disabled persons were terminated under section 75 of the Act No. 66 of 1950. The Court relied on the following precedents: 1. Nihalkaran Rao v. Ramgopal 1966 RN 331= AIR 1966 SC 1485= 1966 JLJ 695 2. Ramkrishna Das v. Shankarpur wali & others :(1970 RN 577) 3. Amar Singh v. Balbhadra Singh & others (1966 RN 477= 1966 JLJ 73) 4. Gajrqj Singh v. Jagatsingh 1970 RN 133 5. Diwan Ram Rao v. Mohanlal (AIR 1980 SC 449) 6. Ladhuram Rameshwardayal (firm) v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Shivpuri and other (1977 JLJ 613) 7. State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak and others 8. East End Duelings Co. Ltd. v. Fineubury Burough Counsel. (1952) AC 109 (b) 9. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City I. Bombay v. Amarchand N. Shroff by his heirs and legal

Final Decision: None