Appeal No 623 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 6 74 of the Karna taka High Court in Civil Revision No 198173
SS JavaIi and BP Singh for the Appellants
SV Gupte and KN Bhatt for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 25 June 1974 of the Karnataka High Court
The principal question in this appeal whether section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 applies to the land in suit which was leased to the respondent
A large plot of land comprising an area of about 20 acres popularly known as The Chamaraja Sewage Farm situate in the city of Bangalore belongs to the appellant Corpora tion
The appellant leased to the respondent by a regis tered lease dated 14 September 270 1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs 13555 
The respondent by notice was called upon to hand over possession of the land immediately after the expiry of the period of lease
The respondent failed to deliver possession
The reason why the appellant required that land is that the Corporation proposed a scheme for the development and construction of a new township on that area
The respondent filed a suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession
The Court upheld the contentions of the appellant that the lease had terminated by efflux of time
The respondent s suit was dismissed
An appeal was pre ferred
The appeal was dismissed on 21 August
The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claim ing possession from the respondent
The appellant contended that the respondent was a trespasser and claimed damages for unauthorised occupation
The respondent contended that he was still a tenant
The respondent claimed protection under the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act 1961 being Act No 15 of 1961
Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Evic 
tion Act 1961 provided for prohibition against eviction
The appellant obtained a decree in the suit
The decree directed the respondent to deliver possession
The respond ent preferred an  appeal
The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for assessment of damages
Upon remand the respondent applied for the amendment of the written statement
The respondent claimed protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
It may be stated here that the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act 1961 ceased to be in force in March 1966
That is perhaps why the respondent made an applica tion for amendment of the written statement on 2 February 1973
The respondent contended relying on section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 that the
suit should be stayed by the civil court and should be referred to the Tribunal for decision
Section 112Bb of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 confers power on the Tribunal to decide inter alia whether a person is a tenant or not
The respondent contended that he was a person who was deemed to be a tenant
The appellant opposed the application for stay of the suit by the civil court and referring to the Tribunal for decision under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
The trial Court held that the land  belonging to the appellant was exempted from the application of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act
The trial Court dismissed the application of the respondent
The respondent presented a revision petition t0 the High Court
The High Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to refer such of the issues which are required to be
decided by the Tribunal
271 Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent is a tenant within the meaning of the word tenant defined in section 234 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
Tenant is defined to mean an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes i a person who is deemed to be a tenant under section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 Section of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 states that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivat ed personally by the owner and if such person is not a a member of the owner s family or b a servant or a hired labourer on wages or c a mortgage in possession It was therefore said that the respondent could raise the con tention whether the respondent was a tenant or not
It was next contended that section 8 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 speaks of rent and rent is referable to tenant and therefore a dispute as to tenancy would be within the ambit of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 states that subject to the provisions of section 110 nothing in this Act except section 8 shall apply to lands inter alia iii belonging to or held on lease or from a local authority
There is no dispute that the land was given on lease by the local authority
There is also no dispute that the land belongs to the local authority
There is also no dispute that the lease was detrmined by efflux of time
The question whether the respondent is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not at all arise because the tenancy came to an end
The respondent thereafter was a trespasser
Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 makes it quite clear that the only provision which applies inter alia to lands belonging to or hold on lease or from a local authority is section 8
No other section of the Land Reforms Act applies to these lands
Section 8 of the Karna taka Land Reforms Act 1961 deals with rent
The suit in the present case was not for recovery of rent
The suit is for recovery of possession and for damages for unauthorised occupation of the respondent
Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 is not applicable
Therefore no question can be referred for determination by the Tribunal under section 133
The Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act 1961 came into effect on 13 December 1961
The Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act 1961 remained in force till the month of March 1966
The re spondent could not draw any support from that Act for pro tection against eviction
The land in question was outside the applicability of the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protec tion from Eviction Act 1961
Further the Act ceased to be in operation in 1966 and no question could be referred for determination as to whether the respondent was a tenant under the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Evic tion Act 1961 or not
The trial Court in the present case rightly said that it could not be said that there was any dispute as to tenancy
272 The respondent had filed a suit where he claimed to remain in possession
The suit of the respondent was dismissed
The appellant all along contended that the lease dated 14 September 1963 for a period of 5 years expired by efflux of time
The appellant claimed possession on the ground Of unauthorised occupation and claimed damages against the respondent who was a trespasser
The High Court was clearly in error in referring to the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 determi nation of the plea taken by the respondent that he was pro tected by the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act 1961
Counsel for the respondent did not support the judgment on that ground
Counsel for the respondent contended that section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 excludes jurisdiction of Civil court in suits for possession where the defendant claims to be a tenant
The plea of the respondent is utterly unsound
Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 cannot apply to lands which are held by a person on lease from the local authority or where the lease had ex pired and the local authority sues for possession on the ground that there is unauthorised occupation
No provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act can be relied upon to contend that there should be protection against recovery of possession by the local authority
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside
In view of the fact that no costs were al lowed by the High Court there will be no order as to costs
MR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent took the disputed land on lease for 5 years from the appellant Corporation and held it unautho risedly after the lease period expired
His suit for a permanent injunction against interference with his posses sion was dismissed and his appeal rejected
The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claiming possession
The suit was decreed and the respondent was directed to deliver possession
On appeal the High Court remanded the case
Upon remand the respondent applied for an amendment of his written statement claiming protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961
He also applied for a stay of the suit by the Civil Court and for a reference to the Tribunal for deciding whether he was a tenant or not
The application was dismissed but on revision the High Court reversed the decision
The principal question in appeal before this Court was whether section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 was applicable to the disputed land held by the respondent
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 makes it 
quite clear that the only provision which applies to lands belonging to or held on lease or from a local authority is section 8
There is no dispute that the lease was determined by efflux of time
The question wheth er the respondent is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not arise because the tenancy came to an end
Section 8 is not applicable
Therefore no question can be referred for determination by the Tribunal under section 133
Section 133 cannot apply where the lease had expired and the local authority sues for possession on the ground that there is unauthorised occupation
271 D E F 272 C