- (1.) Ramgopal-respondent in this appeal-was a tenant of certain Inam land situate in village Nanda Panth in Indore tahsil. The appellant Rao Nihalkaran - holder of the Inam-served a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground that he needed the land for personal cultivation, and commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, on July 21, 1950, against Ramgopal for a decree in ejectment. The Trial Court decreed the suit During the pendency of the appeal to the District Court, Indore by Ramgopal against the decree Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection Act 32 of 1954 was enacted, and pursuant to the provisions thereof hearing of the appeal remained stayed till 1960. In the mean time the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Act 20 of 1959) was brought into force. Ramgopal urged before the District Court that he had by virtue of S. 185 of the Code acquired rights of an occupancy tenant and the appellant's right to obtain an order in ejectment on the ground set up must be refused. The District Judge accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the appeal. Against the decree passed by the District Court, Indore the appellant appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. Following their judgment in Rao Nihalkaran v. Ramchandra, L. P. No. 14 of 1961, dated 24-9-1962 (Madh Pra), the High Court confirmed the decree of the District Judge, and dismissed the appeal. With special leave granted by this Court, this appeal has been preferred.
(2.) The dispute in the appeal centres round the meaning of the expression "tenant" used in S. 185 (1), Cl. (ii)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The material part of the clause reads: "Every person who at the coming into force of this Code holds- (i) xx xx xx xx (ii) in the Madhya Bharat region- (a) any Inam land as a tenant, or as a sub-tenant or as an ordinary tenant; 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." It is common ground that the tenancy of an occupancy tenant may be determined under S. 193 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code by an order of the sub-Divisional Officer on the grounds specified in that section, and personal requirement of the landlord is not one of such grounds. But counsel for the appellant urged that the rights of an occupancy tenant arise in favour of a person under S. 185(1), Cl. (ii)(a) only if there is between him and the claimant to the land a subsisting relation under which he holds land as a tenant at the date when the Code came into force. The Code has, it is said, no retrospective operation, and the person who under the law in force before the commencement of the Code had ceased to be a tenant because of termination of the contract between him and the landlord is not invested with the rights of an occupancy tenant under S. 185(1)(ii)(a). In the alternative it is contended that by virtue of S. 261 and S. 262 (2), operation of S. 185 is expressly excluded, when a person against whom proceedings have been instituted prior to the commencement of the Code for a decree in ejectment in enforcement of a right acquired under the law then in force, claims the status of an occupancy tenant.
(3.) The District Court held that the expression "tenant" within the meaning of S. 185(1)(ii)(a) of the Code includes a person whose tenancy stood determined before the commencement of the Code, and with that view the High Court agreed. Counsel for the appellant complained that in reaching this conclusion, the Courts below ignored the definition in S. 2 (y) of the Code that the expression "tenant" means a person holding land from a Bhumiswami as an occupancy tenant under Ch. XIV, and said that a person qua whom the contractual relation under which he was inducted as a tenant was determined prior to the commencement of the Code is not a tenant within the meaning of S. 185 (1)(ii)(a). To appreciate this argument it is necessary to examine the relevant legislative history culminating in the enactment of the Code in 1959.;