http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ANANGA BIJOY MITTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TATA IRON & STEEL CO., LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/11/1962

BENCH:

ACT: Land    Tenure-Application   for    lease-Lease    granted-- Ascertainment  of the purpose of lease-Terms of  application for  lease to be looked into-Agricultural  tenant-Definition of  Monthly tenancy-Undertaking to abide by  house  building rules-  Not a Raiyat-Liable to eviction-Chotanagpur  Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. 6 of 1908), ss. 4(2), 6.

HEADNOTE: The predecessor in interest of the present appellant applied to the land officer of the respondents for the settlement of the subject,matter of dispute, situated in,Jamshedpur.   The land  was let out to him as tenant from month to month at  a rent of Re.  1 /- per month.  There was no document creating the   lease.   The  application  for  settlement   contained averments  to the effect that the applicant wanted it 1  for garden purposes" that he agreed to hold the land "on monthly tenancy" and that would abide by the "house building rules". Following  a  notice  to quit the respondents  who  are  the owners  of  the  plot  filed  a-suit  for  eviction  of  the appellant  and for arrears of rent.  The defence raised  was that  there  was no monthly tenancy and the  lease  was  for agricultural  and horticultural purposes and  the  appellant was an agricultural tenant within the meaning of ss. 4 and 6 of  the  Chotanagpur Tenancy Act who has fixity  of  tenure. _The trial court upheld the contention and on appeal it  was confirmed  by the Subordinate Judge.  On second  appeal  the High  Court of Patna held that the lease was not  for  agri- cultural purposes and ordered eviction.  The present  appeal is by way of special leave granted by this Court. The  main  contention before this Court was that  since  the application  for  Jew made it clear that the  land  was  for "garden 2 purpose" the appellant was raiyat within the meaning of s. 6 of the Act. Held,  that the statement of the purpose had  to  considered alongwith  the other facts mentioned in the  document,  viz. that the application was for a monthly tenancy, and that the applicant  agreed to abide by the house building rules.   On such consideration, it was clear that the lease was not  for horticultural or agricultural purposes.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1960. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated March 26, 1958, of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

1330 of 1954. N.C. Chatterjee and R. C. Prasad, for the appellant. S.   N. Andley and S. P. Varma, for the respondent No. 1. 1962.   November 9. The judgment of the Court was  delivered by DAS  GUPTA,  J.-The subject-matter of this litigation  is  a plot  of  land  measuring 1267 sq. ft.  in  the  Sakchi  New Planning  area in the town of Jamshedpur.  On June  23,1937, Abdul Gani, through whom the present appellant claims to  be interested in the land, applied for settlement of this  plot of  land to the Land Officer of the owner of the  land,  the Tata  Iron  and  Steel Company  Ltd.   The  application  was allowed  and the land was let out to Abdul Gani as a  tenant from month to month at a rent of Re. 1/per month.  The  suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought in 1949  for ejectment  of the tenant after determination of the  tenancy by a notice to quit the premises.  There was also, a  prayer for arrears of rent at Re 1/- per month. The  defence of Abdul Gani was that he was an  agriculturist tenant as contemplated under the 3 Ghotanagpur Tenancy Act and not a monthly tenant and that no monthly  rent  was paid for the land It ’was,  also  pleaded that  the  lease being for  agricultural  and  horticultural purposes  at an annual rent, the defendant acquired a  valid occupancy  right  and  was not  liable  to  ejectment.   The present appellant was added as a defendant by an order dated May 25, 1953.  He also filed a written statement  contending that  by operation of the provisions of Chotanagpur  Tenancy Act,  Abdul  Gani  had acquired occupancy  right,  that  the purpose for which settlement was made with Abdul Gani  could not  create  a  monthly tenancy and the  plaintiff  was  not entitled to Khas possession.  The    Trial  Court  (The  Additional  Munsif,  Jamshedpur), accepted the defence plea that the tenancy created in favour of Abdul Gani was agricultural, that Abdul Gani had acquired an  occupancy raiyat’s right therein and as the tenancy  Act was governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act the suit was not triable  by  a civil court.  Accordingly, he  dismissed  the suit. On  appeal  the  Subordinate  Judge,  Singhbhum,  with   the findings   of   the  Trial  Court  that  the   holding   was agricultural  and  therefore  governed  by  the  Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and accordingly affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The  High Court of judicature at Patna however came  to  the conclusion  in  Second  Appeal that the lease  was  not  for agricultural  and  horticultural purposes and there  was  no question.  of  the defendant having acquired  the  right  of occupancy  in the land.  The High Court allowed the  appeal, set  aside the judgment and decree of the courts  below  and decreed the plaintiffs suit. Against this decision of the High Court this appeal has been filed by special leave granted by this Court. 4 In  support  of the appeal it is urged before us by  Mr.  N. Chatterjee,  that the High Court erred in holding  that  the lease  was not for agricultural or  horticultural  purposes. He  points  out that the application for lease of  the  land mentions  ""garden purpose" as the purpose of  the  tenancy, and  argues  that that is sufficient to make  Abdul  Gani  a raiyat within the meaning of s. 6 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.   Section 4 of the Act states that for the  purpose  of this Act there shall be four classes of tenants, namely, (1) tenure-holders,(2) raiyats, (3) under-raiyats  and(4)Munderi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Khunt-kattidars.  Admittedly’ and obviously, Abdul Gani  was not  a tenant under classes 1, 3 and 4 and the only  way  he could  come within the ambit of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act  was by being a "raiyat" as mentioned in class (2).  "Raiyat"  is defined in s. 6 of this Act to mean "primarily a person  who has  acquired  a  right  to hold land  for  the  purpose  of cultivating it by himself or by ’members of his family or by hired servants.- or with the aid of partners ; and  includes the successors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right  It has been settled by a number of decisions of the Calcutta  and  the  Patna High Courts that  the  purpose  of planting   an   orchard  comes  within  "’the   purpose   of cultivation."  If it appears that Abdul Gani took  lease  of the land in dispute for the purpose of growing an orchard he clearly became a raiyat’ under the Chotanagpur Tenancy  Act. While  there is no document creating the lease we  have,  in the present case, Abdul Gani’s application for lease and the landlord’s order granting the lease.  The application is  in these words:-               "I  beg to apply for a plot of land  measuring               1267 sq It. in Sakchi New Planning for  Garden               Purpose and for permission to retain one  step               in the east side.               I  agree to hold the land on  monthly  tenancy               and  to abide by the terms and  conditions  of               the               5               Company and the house building rules.  I  also               agree  to abide by the rules and  bye-laws  of               the  Jamshedpur  Notified  Area  Committee  in               force from time to time.               I  agree  to pay the security  deposit  to  be               fixed by you in respect of my tenancy as  soon               as the plot IS allotted to me and shall submit               the plan of MY proposed house for approval  of               the   Chief  Town  Engineer  before  I   start               construction.               I therefore request that you will kindly allot               me a plot of land in the above mentioned Basti               on your usual terms." Mr. Chatterjee fastens on the words "for garden purpose" and argues that that shows clearly that the purpose was to  grow an  orchard.  It will not be proper however to look only  at this one phrase "for garden purpose" and to ignore the  rest of the document.  It has to be noticed that after stating in the  first  sentence  that he wanted the  land  "for  garden purpose"  Abdul  Gani stated in the next paragraph  that  he agreed to hold the land "on monthly tenancy" and again  that he  agreed  "to  abide by the terms and  conditions  of  the Company  and the house building. rules." It is difficult  to conceive of a lease for cultivation being taken on a monthly tenancy.  It is even more difficult to understand why  Abdul Gani would agree "to abide by the house building rules" if I the  purpose was only to grow an orchard.  These two  facts, namely,  that the land would be held on monthly tenancy  and the tenant would abide by the house-building rules, have  to be considered along with the earlier statement that the land was  being applied "’for garden purpose." The terms  of  the application  for  lease are, in our opinion,  sufficient  to show  that  the  lease  was  not  for  an  agricultural   or horticultural  purpose.  In view of this, it is  unnecessary to  investigate how the land was actually used.  It  may  be mentioned however that if one did examine the evidence to 6 find  out such user, it becomes clear that while a  part  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  land  was used for growing some guava, trees  and  some flowers, a pacca room was also erected: on a portion of  the land.   On  a  consideration of all  these  things  we  find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the  purpose of the lease was not agricultural or horticultural. We  have,  therefore, come to the conclusion that  the  High Court  was  right in decreeing the  plaintiff’s  suit.   The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.