Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

At the outset of the discussion of the points urged for the appellants, we may briefly notice, the relevant provisions of the three Acts--viz. the Bombay Act, the Mysore Act and the Karnataka Act. Subsections (1 8), (14) and (10A) of the definition section 2 of the Bombay Act respectively defines 'tenant', 'protected tenant' and 'permanent tenant'. Sub- section (18) says :

" " tenant" means a person who holds land on lease and includes-

(a) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under section 4;

(1) I.L.R. 53 Bombay, 969.

It would thus be seen that if respondent No. I in these appeals was a "deemed tenant" under the Bombay Act, he had the protection of the Mysore Act. The Karnataka Act has been amended several times, such as, by Karnataka Act 14 of 1965; Act 38 of 1966; Act 6 of 1970 and Act 1 of 1974. We are referring to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Act from one of the two petitions of special leave, as we were given to understand that the relevant provisions at the relevant time read as mentioned in the said petition of special leave, The expressions 'permanent tenant' and' 'protected tenant' are defined in subsections (23) and (27) respectively of section 2. Sub-section (34) says :-

(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under section-

4.

(ii)a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961.

(iii)a person who is a permanent tenant, and

(iv)a person who is a protected tenant.

Section 4 states that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to any person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner. A permanent tenant, is defined under section 2 clause (23) as meaning a tenant who cultivates lands personally. A protected tenant is defined as meaning a tenant of any land if he has held it continuously and cultivated it personally for a period of not less than 12 years by the appointed date. It includes also others specified in the definition. It is, therefore, clearly the duty of the Tribunal to determine whether a person who claims to ]be a tenant is an agriculturist whether he cultivates personally the lands, whether he holds the lands from a landlord, whether he is a deemed tenant under section 4, whether he is entitled to protection from eviction from any land under the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, whether he is a permanent tenant and whether he is a protected tenant. In this connection it is necessary to note the definition of landlord in section 2(21) which means a person who has leased the land to a tenant and includes person entitled to receive the rent from a tenant. It is also the duty of the Tribunal to determine whether the tenant is holding the land on lease from a landlord which has been explained in Asa Ram, and Anr. vs. Mst. Ram Kali & Anr.,(1) by Venkatarama Aiyar J. as the person who is entitled to possession. These questions are undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and as such. excluded. from the jurisdiction of the (1)[1958] S.C.R. 986.

The Court further proceeded to observe that the jurisdiction of the Court is not barred in considering the question whether the provisions of the Act are applicable or not applicable to the disputed land during the particular period.

The question of the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came to be considered by this Court in Corporation of City of Bangalore v. I. T. Kampanna. (1) The respondent took the disputed land on lease for 5 years from the Corporation and continued to hold it unauthorisedly after the lease period. He filed a suit for permanent injunction against interference with his possession. The suit was dismissed and an appeal was also rejected. Then the Corporation instituted the suit for possession, the suit was decreed and respondent was directed to deliver possession. On appeal the High Court remanded the case and on revision the respon- dent applied for an amendment of his written statement claiming protection of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and for stay of the suit by the Civil Court and for a reference to the Tribunal for deciding the question whether he was a tenant or not. The application was dismissed, but on revision the High Court reversed the decision. On the question whether section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was applicable to the disputed land, this Court held that the section made it clear that the only provision which applies to lands belonging to the Corporation is section 8 and there is no dispute that the suit was determined by efflux of time and the question whether tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not arise because the tenancy came to an end and therefore section 8 is not applicable and no question remained to be referred for determination by the Tribunal under section 133. In this case the Corporation instituted a suit claiming possession from the respondent contending that the respondent was a trespasser and claiming damage for unauthorised properties. The defence of the respondent was that he was a tenant and entitled to protection under the Mysore Tenancy Act. After remand by the High Court when the matter was being heard by the trial court, the respondent applied for amendment of written statement claiming protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and prayed that the suit should be stayed by the Civil Court 'and the matter referred to the Tribunal for decision as the Tribunal was empowered to decide whether a person is a tenant or not. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the respondent is a tenant within the meaning of the word "tenant" is defined in section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. This Court held that as section 107 of the Act exempted the application of the provisions of the Act except section 8 to corporation, the question whether the respondent is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant (1) [1977]1 S.C.R. 269.