1969 (10) TMI 97 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of sub-lease under Section 73 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 77 of 1950.
2. Interpretation of Section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
3. Application and protection under the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act, 1955.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding a sub-lease of land granted by the plaintiff to the defendants, which was challenged as being in contravention of Section 73 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 77 of 1950. The Trial Court and District Court held the defendants as trespassers, but the High Court allowed the appeal, considering the defendants as occupancy tenants under Section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, relying on a previous judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court challenging this interpretation.

2. Section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code deems a person holding land as a ryotwari sub-lessee under the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act, 1955, as an occupancy tenant with rights and liabilities under the Code. The Supreme Court clarified that a person declared a trespasser under Section 78 of the Act 77 of 1950 does not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant under Section 185(1)(ii)(b). The protection under the 1955 Act was limited to ryotwari sub-lessees, excluding those deemed trespassers under Section 78.

3. The Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act, 1955, provided protection to sub-lessees during its continuance, except for sub-lessees under Section 74 and those deemed trespassers under Section 78 of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that only sub-lessees falling within the definition of ryotwari sub-lessees under the 1955 Act could claim the rights of an occupancy tenant under the subsequent Land Revenue Code.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the decree passed by the District Court, emphasizing that a person inducted as a sub-lessee contrary to the provisions of the Act 77 of 1950 does not acquire rights as an occupancy tenant under the subsequent Land Revenue Code.