Case: Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore Vs. B.T. Kampanna

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 ofthe 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 Corporation. The appellant:leased to the respondent by a registered lease dated 14 September, 1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs. 13, 555/-. 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 thatrespondent 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 respondents suit was dismissed. An appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed on 21 August, .appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claiming 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 Eviction) Act, 1961 provided for prohibition against eviction.The appellant obtained a decree in the suit . The decree directed the respondent to deliver possession. The respondent preferred an appeal. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for assessment ofremand the respondent applied for the amendment of the written statement. The respondent claimed protection underthe 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 application for amendment of the written statement on 2 February 1973. The respondent contended relying on section 133 ofthe 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 112(B)(b) ofthe Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 confers power on t he 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 underthe 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 therespondent 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.

Reasoning:
The High Court was clearly in error in referring to the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 determination of the plea taken by the respondent that he was protected by the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act 1961. Counsel for the respondent did not support the judgment on thatfor the respondent contended that section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 196 1 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 expired 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 localt was, therefore, said that the respondent could raise the contention whether the respondent was a tenant or not. It was next contended that section 8 ofthe 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 ofthe Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.Section 107 ofthe 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 determined 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 aof the Karnataka Land ReformsAct, 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 ofthe Karnataka 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 ofthe Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is not applicable. Therefore, no question can be referred for determination by the Tribunal under section 133.