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

PETITIONER: CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B.T. KAMPANNA

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2361            1977 SCR  (1) 269  1976 SCC  (3) 716  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC1217  (18,13,39)

ACT:              The  Karnataka  Land  Reforms Act, 1961,  Ss.  107  and         133--Whether  applicable to land unauthorisedly  held  after         expiry of lease.

HEADNOTE:             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 S. 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]

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

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil 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,. 1964.             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

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

       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

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

       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.         273