Nathu Prasad v. Ranchhod Prasad & Ors.

The Judgment of the Court ,,.,as delivered by Shah, J. Of Khasra Nos. 33 & 34 of Mahcshwar, District Xhargone, Madhya Pradesh, Nathu Prasad-hereinafter called 'the plaintiff'-is the recorded pattedar tenant. On May 20, 6H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 2 S.C.R. 1955 he granted a sub-lease of the land, for a period of five years, to Ranchhod Prasad and Onkar Prasad-hereinafter col· lectively called 'the defendants'. On June 30, 1960 the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, MaheSh­ war against the defendants claiming that the sub-lease being in contravention of s. 73 of the 1:adhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 77 of 1950 the defendants were trespassers in the land. The defendants contended that the leMe was valid, and since the plaintiff had received consideration, he \Vas estopped from setting up the plea of invalidity of the lease. The Trial Court decreed the action, holding that the defendants were tres­ passers and could not acquire Bhumiswami rights claimed by them. The District Court agreed with the Trial Court. In second . appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's action. In ·the view of the High Court the defendants had acquired rights as occupancy tenan:s under s. 185(l)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. In so holding the High Court relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rao Nihalkara11 v. Ramchandra ( 1). With special leave, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. :::ection 73 of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) provides : "No Pakka tenant shall sub-let for any period what­ soever any ·]and comprised in his holdings except in the cases provided for in section 74. Explanation :- " Section 74 deals with sub-letting by disabled persons. Since the plaintiff is not a disabled persdn, the section need not be read. Seciion 7 5 provides : "A sub-lease of t1Ie whole or any part of the hold· ing of a Pakka tenant effected properly and legally prior to the commencement of this Act shall terminate after the expiry of the period of sub-lease or 4 years after the commencement of this Act, which<Ner period is less." Section 7 6 provides . "( 1) If the sub-lessee does not hand over posses- sion of the land sub-let to him after the sub-lease ceases H to be in force under sections 7 4 and 7 5 to the lessor or ~~=-~~~~~~- (!) (1963) M P. L. 1 314. NATHU PRASAD \'. RANCHHOD PRASAD (Shah, J.) 645 his legal heir . . . ., he shall be deemed to be a trespasser and shall be liable to ejcctment in accor- · dance with the provisions of thi.s Act. (2) .. Section 78 provides : " ( 1) Any possession who in contravention of the provisions of this Act, obtains possession of any land by virtue of a bequest, gift, sale, mortgage or sub-lease, or of any agreement purporting to be a bequest, gift, sale, mortgage or sub-lease sh;;l! be deemed to be r. trespasser and shall be liable to ej.~ctment in accordance with the provisions of section 58. .. The Madhya Bharat Legislature enacted the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Proteciion Act, 1955 (Act 29 of 1955). The Act came into force on October 19, 1955. The Act was en­ acted to provide for stay of proceedings under s. 7 6 (1) for the ejectment of sub-leases of ryotwari land after the termination of sub-leases according to s. 75 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat 2007. "Ryotwari sub-Jessee" was de­ fined in cl. (b) of s. 2 as meaning "a person to whom a pakka tenant of any Ryotwari land has sub-let on sub-lease any pait of his Ryotwari land''. Section 3 of Act 29 of 1955 provides : "Nothwithstanding anything contained in section 76 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Sam vat 2007, during the continuance of this Act but subject to the provisions contained in section 4 below, no Ryotwari sub-lessee other than a sub-lessee under section 74 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, and a sub-lessee deem­ ed to be a trespasser under section 78 of the said Land Revenue and Tenancy A~t, shalJ be ejected from his land." Section 3 clearly grants protection during the continuance of the Act to sub-lessees. But sub-lessees under s. 74 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and a sub-lessee deemed· to be a trespasser under s. 78 of that Act are outside that pro­ tection. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Aci 20 of 1959) was enacted by the State Legislature and was brought into force in the whole of the State of M3dhya Pradesh. By that Code. Act 29 of 1955 was repealed. The expression "tenant" was defined in s. 2(y) as meaning "a person holding land from a Bhumi­ swami as an occupancy tenant under Chapter XN." Section 18 5, insofar as it is relevant, provides ; SUPHMI! COURT l.BPOllTS [11170] 2 S.C.R. "(i) Every person who at the coming into force of this Code holds- (ii) In the Madhya Bhafdi region- ( a) any Inam land as a tenant, or as a sub-tenant or as an ordinary tenant ; or Explanation (b) any land as ryotwari sub-lessee as defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act, 1955 (29 of 1955); or shall be called an occupancy tenant and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an o.ccupancy tenant by or under this Code." By s. 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code a person who is holding land as a ryotwari sub-lessee under Act 29 of 1955 is deemed to be an occupancy tenant and is entitled to all the rights and is subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an occupancy tenant by or under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. A person-inducted as a sub-lessee, but who by express pro­ vision contain.~d in s. 73 read with s. 78 of Act 66 of 1950 is declared a trespasser, does not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant under s. 185 (I )(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Act 29 of 1~55 conferred protection only upon a ryotwari sub-lessee, and a ryotwari sulrlessee was defo:ad in that Act as meaning· a person in whose favour the land was settled. A person, the lease in' whose favour was declared void by virtue of Act 66 of 1950, could not claim the status of a sub­ lessee. That is so enacted in s. 3 which excludes from the pro­ iection granted by Act 29 of 1955, amongst others, a sub-lessee deemed to be a trespasser under s. 78 of Act 66 of 1950. A person inducted as a sub-lessee contrary to the provisions of s. 73 of Act 66 of 1950 did not therefore acquire any right under a contract of sub-letting. and his possession was not protected under Act 2.9 of 1955. Such a person is not a ryotwari sub-lessee as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act 29 of 1955, and it is only on "Ryotwari sub-lessee" as defined in that Act that the right of occupancy tenant is conferred by s. 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Krishnan, J., ree:arded himself bound by the following obser­ vation made bv a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh· High Court in Rao Niha/karon's case(') : ,.,..(1) (1963) M.P.L.1. 314. .. 8 NATHU PRASAD v. RANCHHOD PRASAD (Shah, J.) U7 "By section 3 of this Act (Act 29 of 1955) a bar was created to the ejectment of these sub-lessees whose ~oniinuance had become precarious under the existing law. The bar was to operate during the continuance of that Act which was for a definite duration notwithstand- ing anything contained in section 76 and 78 of the Madhya Bharai Land Revenue and Tenancy Act bar­ rin& exceptions contained in section 74 of that Act." The observation that protection was given to sub-lessees, · not­ withstanding anything contained in s. 78 was apparently made through oversight; it is contrary to the express provisions of the c Act. The High Court was, in our 1udgment, in error in holding that the defendants had acquired the status of occupancy tenants by virtue of s. 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of 1959). The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court D is set aside and ihe decree passed by the District Court is res­ tored. There will be no order as to costS in ibis Court and in the High Court. R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.