In the t§ase.of BEERA AGERA vs LAND TREUNAL. ANKOLA
1998 KAR 2381. learned Single Judge of this
Cour't.__hals under Section 45(1) of the Act a person
V _cla_iming occupancy on the ground of being a st.1b~tenant can
S.t1GC?_'€d only if he is able to show that the sub--letting in his
e.fla'v.oui*-*vvas prior to 02.10.1965. It is further held that if the
it :l_""s»ub~tenancy rights were acquired after the coming into force of
" the provisions of the Act, the said sub--tenancy was hit by the
provisions of Section 2}. which prohibited sub--letting. In our
33»
View, the proposition of law regarding the prohibition of subw
lease as enacted under Section 21(1) with effectfrfrom
02.10.1965 is rightly laid down in this decision.
13. In the instant case, the learned Single notw.
noticed the effect of Section 21. Reliance:-placed» the
Single Judge on the decision? in theocase
JAYADEVARAO Vs THE LAND sins: UTTARA
KANNADA msrmcr ANL'i_GTHEi§S:_ :2._Voo'3g4) 2339 is not
apposite to the facts of said case, the
effect of the proVi'sio'ns' contained 1indef'Se.ction 21(1) of the Act
is not co1vivsidere*df;_V made therein to the effect
that all that was considered was as to whether
the sub~.~t_enant" vsfas..cu1tiVating the land as on 01.03.1974 or
immediategr prior ther'e't'o,V are the result of non-consideration of
thee. slijhflease under Section 21(1) of the Act and
therefore thelliegarned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on
said" Vjiidgment and in proceeding on the basis of the
provisions of Section 49 without noticing the provisions
[contained under section 21 (1) of the Act.
» Insofar as the contention urged by the Counsel for the
fillants on the basis of the judgment in the case of BAKILANA
CI-IINNAPPA VS LAND TRIBUNAL MERCARA TALUK AND OTHERS
o';fH:ER"s gzoooxs) KLJ 426;
[ii] NAIK vs THE LAND
" "'rm1:3zJNAi;;AND.oa'HE1"zs'V»--' 1987(2) KLJ 337;
{iii)"-_ BANG] {DEAD} THROUGH
'ms; Vs J DI AND OTHERS