Case: Diwan Ram Rao Vs. Mohan Lal

Diwan Ram Rao Palshikar, the appellant in this appeal by special leave directed from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was a minor in the year 1947. The suit land bearing Khasra No. 92/93 measuring 1.10 acres was his Inam land situated in mouzanow within the municipal limits of Indore City. During the appellants minority his estate was under the management of the courts of Wards of the Holkar State. The Manager of the Court of Wards had given the land in dispute on lease to Shri Mohanlal Kimti, thein the appeal, for one year i.e. fasli year 1357, equivalent tofor agricultural purpose. That was the case of the appellant and according to his further case the lease expired on June 5, 1948. He attained majority on June 15, 1948. Even so the respondent failed to deliver possession of the suit land either to the Court of Wards or to the appellant. He, therefore, served on respondent 2 two registered notices, one dated September 7, 1948 and the other dated April 30, 1951, calling upon him to deliver possession of the agricultural land in dispute. He brought the suit on June 27, 1952 for possession and for recovery of Rs. 150 by way of mesne profits for three years as also for future damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per year till delivery of possession. It may be noticed here that the amounts claimed by the appellant were exactly at the rate of Rs. 50 per year, the rate at which the tenancy had been given to the respondent.2. The defendant in his original written statement filed on September 2, 1952 contested the claim of the appellant on various grounds asserting that he had taken the land for construction of huts and had built upon it. This was in reply to the appellants assertion that the land had been given for agricultural purpose but had been misused for building purpose. During the pendency of the suit in the trial Court the Madhya Bharat Munafi and Inam Tenants andProtection Act, 1954 (Madhya Bharat Act 32 of 1954) was passed and came into force on December 15, 1954. In accordance with the provision contained in the said Act the respondent applied to the High Court where the suit was pending to stay it under Section 3 and 4 of the said Act. In spite of opposition by the appellant the court allowed the prayer of the respondent and stayed the suit by its order dated August 31, 1955.3. Madhya Bharat Act 32 of 1954 expired on October 2, 1959 on coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Madhya Pradesh Act 20 of 1959). The appellant, thereupon filed an application on February 2, 1960 for resuming the proceedings of the suit. The proceedings were resumed. On November 22, 1960, however, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the written statement and claimed to resist the suit on the ground that he had become an occupancy tenant of the disputed land under Section 185 of the Land Revenue Code. In spite of the objection by the appellant, amendment was allowed and a new issue being Issue 12 was framed in the following terms :Has the defendant become occupancy tenant in view of Section 185(2) of M. P. Land Revenue Code ? If so effect ?4. The trial Court took up the 12th issue aforesaid for trial as a preliminary issue in the suit and held that since the land in dispute was the Inam land of the appellant and the same was leased out to the respondent for agricultural purpose wherein he was induced as an ordinary tenant he continued to hold it as such on October 2, 1959 when the Land Revenue Code came into force and, therefore, he became an occupancy tenant, under Section 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Land Revenue Code. The appellant was, therefore, not entitled to dispossess him. The claim for money was decreed to the tune of Rs. 150 for the past three years and at the rate of Rs. 50 per year in future. No eviction decree was granted.

Reasoning: 8. The first reason is that reading the pleadings of the parties together as a whole it would be found that the lease had been granted for agricultural purpose. The appellant all along treated him as a tenant under Act 66 of 1950 in spite of the huts which the respondent had put upon the land. In the notice which the appellant had given prior to the institution of the suit, as is mentioned in the judgment of the High Court, it was clearly stated that the land in dispute was an Inam land; that it was an agricultural land and that it was leased out to the defendant for agricultural purposes. In the plaint, paragraphs 1 and 2 the same position was reiterated. In paragraph 3, however, it was stated that he had built a house on the land and hence also the suit was filed. But the main case of action mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint was the expiry of the period of one years lease. On the averment in the plaint itself two things may be pointed out. Firstly it was not asserted that the lease stood forfeited on account of the misuse of the land. The determination of the lease was claimed only on account of efflux of time. Secondly the house which was alleged to have been built by the defendant could not be on the entire area of more than one acre. It must have been on a portion of it only. In that view of the matter Section 55 of Madhya Bharat Act 66 of 1950 comes into play.The second reason for upholding the judgment of the High Court is that the ratio of Nihalkaran case ((1966) 3 SCR 427   : AIR 1966 SC 1485  ) cannot be confined to a case of determination of tenancy by notice only. It is well known that a tenancy of a tenant gets determined by several modes such as by efflux of time, by notice, by forfeiture brought about by the misuse of the land and the like. It is difficult to distinguish between one kind of determination of the tenancy and the other for the application of the ratio decidendi of Nihalkaran case ((1966) 3 SCR 427   : AIR 1966 SC 1485  ). It could not be and was not disputed that a tenant continuing in possession of the land even after its determination by one method or the other does not abruptly become a trespasser. If a beneficial legislation gives him protection against eviction he can claim protection in spite of the determination of the tenancy. That is in substance what was held in Nihalkaran case ((1966) 3 SCR 427   : AIR 1966 SC 1485  ). If that be so, we see no reason to refuse protection to the respondent in this appeal and to hold that because he has used the land for "building purpose", he could not get the protection of being an occupancy tenant under the Land Revenue Code.