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

PETITIONER: NATHU PRASAD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANCHHOD PRASAD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/1969

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  483            1970 SCR  (2) 643  1969 SCC  (3)  11

ACT: Madhya  Pradesh Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), s.  185  (i) (ii)  (b) Occupancy Rights-If enures to persons inducted  as tenants  in contravention of s. 73,  Revenue  Administration and  Ryotwari Land and Revenue and Tenancy Act  Samvat  2007 (66  of 1950)-Madhya Bharat Ryotwari  Sub-lessee  Protection Act (29 of 1955).

HEADNOTE: The   respondents   were   inducted   as   sub-lessees    in contravention  of ’S. 73 of the Revenue  Administration  and Ryotwari  Land  Revenue  and  Tenancy  Act,  1950.   On  the question  whether they acquired rights as occupancy  tenants under s. 185 (1) (ii) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. 1959. HELD : A person inducted as a sub-lessee, but who by express provision  contained in s. 73 read with s. 78 of Act  66  of 1950  is declared a trespasser, does not acquire the  States of an occupancy tenant under s. 185(1)(ii)(b) of the  Madhya Pradesh  Land  Revenue  Code.   Act  29  of  1955  conferred protection  only upon a ryatwari sub-lessee, and a  ryotwari sub-lessee  was defined in that Act as meaning a  person  in whose  favour the land was settled.  A Person, the lease  in whose favour was declared void by virtue of Act 66 of  1950, could  not  claim the status of a. sub-lessee.  That  is  so enacted  in s. 3 which excludes from the protection  granted by Act 29 of 1955, amongst others, a sub-lessee deemed to be a  trespasser  under  s. 78 of Act 66  of  1950.   A  person inducted as a sub-lessee contrary to the provisions of s. 73 of  Act  66 of 1950 did not, therefore,  acquire  any  right under a contract of sub--letting, and his possession was not protected  under  Act 29 of 1955.  Such a person  is  not  a ryotwari  sub-lessee defined in the Madhya  Bharat  Ryotwari Sub-lesse  protection  Act  29 of 1955, and it  is  only  on ’Ryotwari sub-lessee’ as defined in that Act that the  right of  occupancy tenants conferred by s. 185(1)(ii)(b)  of  the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. [646 E] The  observation  contra  in Rao  Nihalkaran  v.  Ramchandra [1963] M.P.L.J. 314, disapproved.

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

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 9, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore  Bench in Second Appeal No. 254 of 1962. Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant. M.   C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah.,  J.  Of Khasra Nos. 33 & 34  of  Maheshwar,  District Khargone,  Madhya Pradesh, Nathu  Prasad-hereinafter  called the plaintiff-is the recorded pattedar tenant.  On May 20, 644 1955  he  granted a sub-lease of the land, for a  period  of five years, to Ranchhod Prasad and Onkar  Prasad-hereinafter collectively called ’the defendants’.  On June 30, 1960  the plaintiff  commenced  an action in the Court  of  the  Civil Judge,  Maheshwar against the defendants claiming  that  the sub-lease  being  in contravention of s. 73  of  the  Madhya Bharat  Land  Revenue  and  Tenancy  Act  77  of  1950   the ’defendants  were trespassers in the land.   The  defendants contended that the lease was valid, and since the  plaintiff had received consideration, he was estopped from setting  up the  plea  of  invalidity of the  lease.   The  Trial  Court decreed  the action, holding that the defendants were  tres- passers  and could not acquire Bhumiswami rights claimed  by them.   The District Court agreed with the Trial Court.   In second  appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed  the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s action.  In the view of the  High  Court  the  defendants  had  acquired  rights  as occupancy  ,tenants  under S. 185(1)(ii)(b)  of  the  Madhya Pradesh  Land  Revenue Code.  In so holding the  High  Court relied  upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court Rao  Nihalkaran v. Ramchandra(1).  With special  leave,  the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. Section  73 of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari  Land Revenue  and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66  of  1950) provides :               "No Pakka tenant shall sub-let for any  period               whatsoever any land comprised in his  holdings               except  in the cases provided for  in  section               74.               Explanation               Section 74 deals with sub-letting by  disabled               persons.    Since  the  plaintiff  is  not   a               disabled person, the section need not be read.               Section 75 provides :               "A  sub-lease of the whole or any part of  the               holding  of a Pakka tenant  effected  properly               and legally prior to the commencement of  this               Act  shall terminate after the expiry  of  the               period  of  sub-lease  or 4  years  after  the               commencement of this Act, whichever period  is                             less."               Section 76 provides.               "(1)  If  the sub-lessee does  not  hand  over               possession  of the land sub-let to  him  after               the  sub-lease  ceases to be  in  force  under               sections 74 and 75 to the lessor or               (1)   [1963] M. P. L. J. 314.               645               his  legal heir " he shall be deemed to be   a               trespasser and shall be liable to ejectment in

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

             accordance with the provisions of this Act.               (2)  ..  ..  ..  ..  ."               Section 78 provides               "(1)  Any possession who in  contravention  of               the provisions of this Act, obtains possession               of  any  land by virtue of  a  bequest,  gift,               sale,   mortgage  or  sub-lease,  or  of   any               agreement  purporting to be a  bequest,  gift,               sale, mortgage or sub-lease shall be deemed to               be  a  trespasser  and  shall  be  liable   to               ejectment in accordance with the provisions of               section 58.                 .   .    .    .    .   ."               The  Madhya  Bharat  Legislature  enacted  the               Madhya  Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee  Protection               Act, 1955 (Act 29 of 1955).  The Act came into               force  on October 19, 1955.  The Act  was  en-               acted to provide for stay of proceedings under               s.  76(1) for the ejectment of  sub-leases  of               ryotwari  land after the termination  of  sub-               leases according to s. 75 of the Madhya Bharat               Land  Revenue  and Tenancy  Act  Samvat  2007.               "Ryotwari  sub-lessee" was defined in cl.  (b)               of  s. 2 as meaning "a person to whom a  pakka               tenant  of  any Ryotwari land has  sub-let  on               sub-lease  any  part of  his  Ryotwari  land".               Section 3 of Act 29 of 1955 provides:               "Nothwithstanding   anything   contained    in               section  76 of the Madhya Bharat Land  Revenue               and  Tenancy  Act,  Samvat  2007,  during  the               continuance  of  this Act but subject  to  the               provisions  contained in section 4  below,  no               Ryotwari  sub-lessee other than  a  sub-lessee               under  section  74 of the Madhya  Bharat  Land               Revenue  and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007,  and  a               sub-lessee  deemed  to be a  trespasser  under               section  78  of  the  said  Land  Revenue  and               Tenancy Act, shall be ejected from his land." Section  3 clearly grants protection during the  continuance of  the Act to sub-lessees.  But sub-lessees under s. 74  of the  Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act and  a  sub- lessee deemed to be a trespasser under s. 78 of that Act are outside that protection. The  Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of  1959)  was enacted by the State Legislature and was brought into  force in the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh.  By that  Code. Act  29 of 1955 was repealed.  The expression "tenant"   was defined in s. 2 (y) as  meaning "a person holding land  from a  Bhumiswami  as an occupancy tenant  under  Chapter  XIV." Section  185, insofar as it is relevant, provides; 646               "  (i)  Every person who at  the  coming  into               force               of this Code holds-               (ii)  In the Madhya Bharat region-               (a)   any Inam land as a tenant, or as a  sub-               tenant or as an ordinary tenant ; or               Explanation               (b)   any  land  as  ryotwari  sub-lessee   as               defined  in  the Madhya Bharat  Ryotwari  Sub-               lessee Protection Act, 1955 (29 of 1955); or               shall be called an occupancy tenant and  shall               have all the rights and be subject to all  the               liabilities  conferred  or  imposed  upon   an               occupancy tenant by or under this Code."

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

By  s. 185 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code a  person who  is holding land ,is a ryotwari sub-lessee under Act  29 of 1955 is deemed to be an occupancy tenant and is  entitled to  all  the rights and is subject to  all  the  liabilities conferred  or imposed upon an occupancy tenant by  or  under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. A  person inducted as a sub-lessee, but who by express  pro- vision contained in s. 73 read with s. 78 of Act 66 of  1950 is declared a trespasser, does not acquire the status of  an occupancy  tenant  under s. 185 (1) (ii) (b) of  the  Madhya Pradesh  Land  Revenue  Code.   Act  29  of  1955  conferred protection  only upon a ryotwari sub-lessee, and a  ryotwari sub-lessee  was defined in that Act as meaning a  person  in whose favour the land was settled.  A person, the lease,  in whose favour was declared void by virtue of Act 66 of  1950, could  not  claim the status of a sub-lessee.   That  is  so enacted  in s. 3 which excludes from the protection  granted by Act 29 of 1955, amongst others, a sub-lessee deemed to be a  trespasser  under  s. 78 of Act 66  of  1950.   A  person inducted as a sub-lessee contrary to the provisions of s. 73 of Act 66 of 1950 did not therefore acquire any right  under a  contract  of  sub-letting  and  his  possession  was  not protected  under  Act 29 of 1955.  Such a person  is  not  a ryotwari  sub-lessee  as  defined  in  the  Madhya   Pradesh Ryotwari  Sub-lessee  Protection Act 29 of 1955, and  it  is only  on "Ryotwari sub-lessee" as defined in that  Act  that the right of occupancy tenant is conferred by s.  185    (1) (ii) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Krishnan,   J.,  regarded  himself bound  by  the  following observation  made by a Division Bench of the Madhya  Pradesh High Court in Rao Nihalkaran’s case(1) (1) [1963] M.P.L.J. 314. 647               "By  section 3 of this Act (Act 29 of 1955)  a               bar was created to the ejectment of these sub-               lessees    whose   continuance   had    become               precarious  under the existing law.   The  bar               was to operate during the continuance of  that               Act   which  was  for  a   definite   duration               notwithstanding anything contained in  section               76  and 78 of the  Madhya Bharat Land  Revenue               and  Tenancy Act barring exceptions  contained               in section 74 of that Act." The  observation that protection was given  to  sub-lessees, notwithstanding  anything contained in s. 78 was  apparently made  through  oversight;  it is  contrary  to  the  express provisions of the Act. The  High  Court was, in our judgment, in error  in  holding that  the  defendants had acquired the status  of  occupancy tenants by virtue of s. 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya  Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of 1959). The  appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the High  Court is set aside and the decree passed by the District Court  is restored.  There will be no order as to costs in this  Court and in the High Court. R.K.P.S.                              Appeal allowed. 648