Case: Nathu Prasad Vs. Ranchhod Prasad &amp; Ors

1. Of Khasra Nos. 33 and 34 of Maheshwar, District Khargaon, Madhya Pradesh, Nathu Prasad - hereinafter called the plaintiff - is the recorded pattedar tenant. On May 20, 1955 he granted a sub-lease of the land, for a period of five years, to Ranchhod Prasad and Onkar Prasad - hereinafter collectively called the defendants. On June 30, 1960 the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Maheshwar against the defendants claiming that the sub-lease being in contravention of Section 73 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 the defendants were trespassers in the land. The defendants contended that the lease was valid, and since the plaintiff had received consideration, he was estopped from setting up the plea of invalidity of the lease. The Trial Court decreed the action, holding that the defendants were trespassers 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 tenants under Section 185 (1) (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 Nihalkaran v. Ramchandra, 1963 MPLJ 314. With special leave, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

Reasoning:
Section 3 clearly grants protection during the continuance of the Act to sub-lessees. But sub-lessees under Section 74 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and a sub-lessee deemed to be a trespasser under Section 78 of that Act and outside thatSection 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 Revenueobservation that protection was given to sub-lessees, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 78 was apparently made through oversight; it is contrary to the express provisions of the Act.