RAM KRISHAN DAS Vs. MAHILA SHANKAR PURWALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Ram Krishan Das who was a pakka tenant under the ryotwari system in the State of Gwalior. He was blind and he had let out the land in dispute to one Ramhans who has since died and the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are his heirs. Thus, Ramhans was a sub-tenant of a pakka tenant before the coming into force of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (Act No. 66 of 1950) [hereinafter called as the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act].THIS Act came into force on 15th August 1950. Before this Act every pakka tenant was permitted to sub-let his holding, whether he was a disabled person or not. The policy of law under the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act was that the pakka tenants should cultivate the lands themselves. Section 73 of this Act consequently provided that no pakka tenant would sub-let his holding. Section 74 permitted disabled persons to sub-let but provided that after the disability ceased, the sub-tenancy would come to an end after one year. Section 75 declared all sub-leases granted before the coming into force of the Act to have terminated at the end of the period for which the sub-leases were granted or at the latest at the end of four years from the date of the enforcement of the Act. THIS section did not protect sub-leases granted before the coming into force of the Act even though such sub-leases may have been granted by a disabled person. The intention obviously was that if a disabled pakka tenant was unable to cultivate himself even after the coming into force of the Act, he could grant a fresh sub-lease under section 74 and continue the subtenant ; but all old sub-leases were terminated. Section 76 provided that after the termination of a sub-lease either under section 74 or under section 75, the sub-tenant would be treated as a trespasser and would be liable to ejectment.

(2.) IN the present case, after the coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act the applicant filed a suit on the 19th March 1953 obviously under section 76 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act on the allegation that the plaintiff had sub-let his lands to the defendant but on the coming into force of the new Act the sub-lease had come to an end. There were ether allegations also which need not be mentioned. The defendant contended that the plaintiff being an old and blind person was entitled to sub-let under section 74 of the Act and also that his term had not come to an end and he was not liable to ejectment. During the hearing of the case the plaintiff made a statement that the defendant had not paid rent for the last six years. This is relevant only for showing that admittedly the sub-lease had been granted before the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act came into force. The Tahsildar who decided the case on 15th July 1955 held that since four years had expired from the date on which the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act came into force, the sub-lease had come to an end on the date of the decree and consequently directed ejectment. There was an appeal by the defendant-tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-lessee Protection Act, 1955 (Act No. 29 of 1955 [hereinafter called the Protection Act]) came into force on the 19th October 1955.

(3.) IN view of the different changes of law mentioned above, the only question for consideration now is whether the sub-tenants acquired occupancy rights under section 185 (1) (ii) (b) or whether they were prevented from getting those rights by sub-section (3) thereof, and, if so, could they be ejected only in fresh proceedings complying with the provisions of section 168 (4) of the M. P. L. R. Code or could the old proceedings be continued. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant pakka tenant is that he is entitled to continue the old proceedings. This is denied on behalf of the respondents, and the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents have acquired occupancy rights and cannot be ejected.