Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (12) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cts and Industries Ltd., a registered company, by a registered lease dated April 1, 1942 for a period of 30 years which stood expired on March 31, 1973 but remained in possession as tenant. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196 1, Act IO of 1962 (for short the Act ) was amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1974 (for short the Amendment Act ). The latter came into effect from March 1, 1974. Section 79- B of the Act prohibits holding of agricultural land by certain persons. Sub-section (1)(b) declares that with effect from the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, it shall not be lawful for a company to hold any land. Sub-section (2) thereof mandates every such company to furnish to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction over the land, a declara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondents, however, was not declared. 3.It is contended for the State that under Section 79- B(1), a person in possession cultivating the land personally shall alone be entitled to hold the land. The company having been declared to be disentitled to hold the lands on or from March 1, 1974 and being enjoined under sub-section (2) to furnish a declaration to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction over the land or greater part thereof, it is the holder for the purpose of Section 79-B of the Act. It is made clear by sub-section (1) of Section 79-B. Shri Javali, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on Section 2(1 1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, contended that the possession of the company was unlawful as the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s an agrarian reform prescribing ceiling on land holding and conferment of ownership on tenant . Section 2(1 1) defines personal cultivation, the details of which are not material, but the Explanation 1 to Section 2(1 1) amplifies that the land held by a society, etc. shall be deemed to be cultivating personally, if such a land is cultivated by hired labour or by servants under the personal supervision of an employee or agent of such institution, society, trust, etc. Under Section 2(21), the owner of the land has been defined with an extended inclusive definition. Section 2(34) defines tenant to mean an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord . Section 5 prohibits grant of lease or creation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the lands. Sub-section (1) expressly mandates that no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled to hold land. In other words, a person be it owner or a tenant, but be in possession and personally cultivating the land has been statutorily permitted to hold the land. The holding of the landowner is subject to the ceiling under Section 66. The company etc. was prohibited to hold land. A duty has been imposed by subsection (2) of Section 79-B to furnish within 90 days, to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction a declaration concerning the land held by it in the prescribed manner. In other words, the company is enjoined to make the declaration. On making such a declaration that the specified land was held by it, su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se had by the appellant expired by efflux of time they remained in occupation and were paying the rent to the lessor. The leases were determined by issue of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit was filed for decree of eviction on the ground of personal requirement. One of the defences was that after the lease was determined the lessor accepted the rent. Therefore, as tenant holding over he was entitled to the protection of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. That was negatived by all the courts and decree for eviction was granted. This Court held that the act of holding over, after expiry of the lease, does not create a tenancy of any kind. After he continued with the consent of the landlord he is tenant at s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erty in case a person who is wrongly or forcefully dispossessed from it. Therefore, the ratio in the above decision also is not of any assistance to the respondents. It is also equally well settled law that of the expiry of the lease of the landlord, the rent of the landlord continues to receive without protest, he acquiesced to the continuance in possession by the lessee and unless he is lawfully ejected his possession cannot be held to be unlawful. 6.As seen, admittedly the respondents as on March 1, 1974 did not have possession of the lands. The company lessee continued to hold the land. By operation of Section 6 though its lease had expired by efflux of time, the lease did not stand terminated. In other words, his possession remains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates