Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 623 of 1975. From the Judgment and Order dated 25 6 74 of the Karna taka 'High Court in Civil Revision No 1981/73. S.S. JavaIi and B.P. Singh	 for the Appellants. S.V. Gupte and K.N. Bhatt	 for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY	 C.J. 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. 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 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 112(B)(b) 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 2(34) 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. M.R. Appeal allowed.

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]