Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors Vs. Krishnarao Shinde And Ors

by the summary proceeding provided for under that section 5. As stated earlier, the High Court had, in the earlier proceeding, held that the Company was not a pakka tenant. That Judgment of the High Court became final by the unconditional withdrawal of the appeal filed in this Court against it. The Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act 66 of 1950), which was the law in force until repealed by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, defined "pakka tenant" as follows "54. (vii) Pakka tenant - means a tenant who has been or whose predecessor in interest had been lawful recorded in respect of his holding as a Ryot Pattedar, Mamuli Maurusi, Gair Maurusi, and Pukhta Maurusi when this Act comes into force or who may in future be duly recognised as such by a competent authorityExplanation. - The terms Pukhta Maurusi includes Istmurardar tenants, Malikana Haq-holder tenants, Hakkiyat Mutafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and Sakitul Milkiyat tenants." 6. An ordinary tenant is defined by Act 66 of 1950 as "a tenant other than a pakka tenant and shall not include sub-tenant." The position, therefore, was that, in terms of Act 66 of 1950, the Company was not a pakka tenant, as found by the High Court in the earlier judgment, and, therefore, it was, according to the said Act, an ordinary tenant 7. The High Court had found in the earlier proceeding that the land in question was held by the Company under lease from the government after it had been acquired by the government for a public purpose of the State. The question, therefore, is whether the Company was, as found by the Additional Collector, a government lessee within the meaning of the Code. It is to be noticed that subsequent to the withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, fresh terms were agreed upon between the Company and the government to enable the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee. The Company is thus a person holding the land from the State Government. This is so whether or not the Company is deemed to be holding over under the old lease or holding, upon termination of that lease, under and in terms of the fresh conditions agreed upon between the parties to enable the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee. In either event, the Company has been holding the land from the State. It is not and cannot be disputed that the original lease was obtained from the predecessor State and the Company continued to remain in possession of the land under the newly stipulated terms agreed upon between the Company and the successor State, namely, the Madhya Pradesh State 8. A government lessee is defined under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 as "a person holding land from the State Government under Section 181". Section 181 of the Code reads "181. Government lessees. - (1) Every person who holds land from the State Government or to whom a right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector and who is not entitled to hold land as a bhumiswami shall be called a government lessee in respect of such land (2) Every person who at the coming into force of this Code - (a) holds any land in the Madhya Bharat region as an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950); or (b) * * * (c) * * * shall be deemed to be a government lessee in respect of such land." * 9. These provisions show that whether or not the Company has been holding the land in terms of the original lease or under the newly stipulated terms of the lease, the Company has been holding the land from the State Government and it has never been an ordinary tenant as defined in Madhya Bharat Act 66 of 1950. Accordingly, whether considered in terms of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 181, the Company has been at all material times a government lessee in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, Section 182 of the Code is attracted. That section reads "182. Rights and liabilities of government lessee. - (1) A government lessee shall, subject to any express provisions in this Code, hold his land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant, which shall be deemed to be a grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (15 of 1895) (2) A government lessee may be ejected from his land by order of a Revenue Officer on one or more of the following grounds, namely(i) that he has failed to pay the rent for a period of three months from the date on which it became due; or (ii) that he has used such land for purposes other than for which it was granted; or (iii) that the term of his lease has expired; or (iv) that he has contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant Provided that no order for ejectment of a government lessee under this sub-section shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence." 10. It was in terms of sub-section (2)(i) Section 182 that the Additional Collector made his order for eviction of the Company. The finding of the Additional Collector is a finding of fact based on evidence and is not liable to be questioned in these proceedings. His finding shows that large amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent and that the rents have remained unpaid for a period far in excess of three months from the dates on which they became due. In the circumstances, the Additional Collector was well justified in having recourse to be proceeding prescribed under Section 182 of the Code. The finding of the High Court to the contrary was, in our view, totally unjustified and opposed to law

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]t is to be noticed that subsequent to the withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, fresh terms were agreed upon between the Company and the government to enable the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee. The Company is thus a person holding the land from the State Government. This is so whether or not the Company is deemed to be holding over under the old lease or holding, upon termination of that lease, under and in terms of the fresh conditions agreed upon between the parties to enable the Company to remain in possession of the land as a lessee. In either event, the Company has been holding the land from the State. It is not and cannot be disputed that the original lease was obtained from the predecessor State and the Company continued to remain in possession of the land under the newly stipulated terms agreed upon between the Company and the successor State, namely, the Madhya PradeshIt was in terms of sub-section (2)(i) Section 182 that the Additional Collector made his order for eviction of the Company. The finding of the Additional Collector is a finding of fact based on evidence and is not liable to be questioned in these proceedings. His finding shows that large amounts are due and payable by the Company as rent and that the rents have remained unpaid for a period far in excess of three months from the dates on which they became due. In the circumstances, the Additional Collector was well justified in having recourse to be proceeding prescribed under Section 182 of the Code. The finding of the High Court to the contrary was, in our view, totally unjustified and opposed to law