Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore v. B.T Kampanna ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 623 of 1975, decided on August 20, 1976.

Disposition

Attorney(S)

S. S Javali and B.P Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant;.
S.V Gupte, Senior Advocate (K.N Bhatt, Advocate, with him), for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice A.N. Ray
Justice P.N. Shingal
Justice M. Hameedullah Beg

Acts

Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 being Act 15 of 1961
Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961
Section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 112(B)(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961
Section 8 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant—described as a local authority corporation—owned approximately 20 acres of land in Bangalore popularly known as “The Chamaraja Sewage Farm.” By a registered lease dated 14 September 1953, the land was let to the respondent for five years at an annual rent of Rs 13,555. After the lease expired, the appellant demanded possession for the purpose of developing a new township. The respondent refused to vacate.

Litigation ensued in two stages:

The respondent first sued for a permanent injunction to restrain eviction. Both the trial court and, on 21 August 1964, the appellate court dismissed that suit, holding the lease had expired.
The appellant then instituted the present suit for possession and damages on the footing that the respondent had become a trespasser. The trial court decreed possession; the High Court remanded the matter for assessment of damages.

During remand proceedings, the respondent sought to amend the written statement (2 February 1973) to claim protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLRA) and requested that tenancy issues be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133. The trial court rejected the application, but the High Court, in revision, directed referral of relevant issues to the Tribunal. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 exempts the suit land—leased from and belonging to a local authority—from the substantive provisions of the Act, thereby precluding any reference to the Land Tribunal.
Consequently, whether the civil court retains jurisdiction to try the suit for possession and damages when the defendant claims to be a “tenant” or “deemed tenant.”

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent’s Arguments

Invoked Section 2(34) read with Section 4 of the KLRA to assert status as a “tenant” or “deemed tenant” because he was allegedly cultivating the land personally.
Contended that disputes about tenancy and rent fall within the scope of Section 8 of the KLRA, activating Section 133, which mandates that such questions be decided exclusively by the Land Tribunal and stays civil proceedings.
Relied, though ultimately abandoned, on previous protection offered by the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961.

Appellant’s Arguments

Maintained that the lease had expired by efflux of time and the respondent was merely a trespasser liable to be evicted and pay damages.
Invoked Section 107(iii) of the KLRA, which exempts lands “belonging to or held on lease from a local authority” from all provisions of the Act except Section 8, and stressed that the present suit concerned possession—not rent—so even Section 8 had no application.
Asserted that Section 133 does not oust civil‐court jurisdiction where Section 107 removes the land from the purview of the KLRA.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the statutory scheme:

Exemption under Section 107: The land both belonged to and had been leased by a local authority; therefore, by the express terms of Section 107, all provisions of the KLRA—save Section 8—were inapplicable.
Irrelevance of Section 8: Section 8 governs rent fixation and disputes; the present suit sought possession and damages, not rent, rendering Section 8 immaterial.
End of Tenancy: Because the lease had expired, any tenancy—actual or deemed—had terminated; the respondent stood in the position of a trespasser, making tenancy issues moot.
Non-application of Section 133: Section 133 can only operate where the KLRA applies substantively. Given the statutory exemption and the nature of the suit, the civil court’s jurisdiction remained intact, and no referral to the Tribunal was warranted.
Mysore Act Inapplicable: The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 had expired in March 1966 and never covered the suit land; thus, it conferred no current protection.
Accordingly, the High Court erred in directing the trial court to frame and refer tenancy issues to the Tribunal.

Holding and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The trial court’s decree for possession and damages stands revived, subject to assessment of damages on remand. No costs were awarded, following the High Court’s earlier order.

Implications are confined to the parties: the respondent must face eviction and liability for damages, and local-authority lands remain outside the substantive scope of the KLRA save for rent matters. The decision turns on statutory interpretation and does not announce a new legal precedent.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore v. B.T Kampanna .

A.N Ray, C.J— This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated June 25, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court.

2. The principal question in this appeal is whether Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which was leased to the respondent.

3. 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 corporation. The appellant leased to the respondent by a registered lease dated September 14, 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.

4. 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 preferred. The appeal was dismissed on August 21, 1964.

5. The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claiming 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 15 of 1961. Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 provided for a prohibition against eviction.

6. The appellant obtained a decree in the suit. The decree directed the respondent to deliver possession. The respondent preferred an appeal. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for assessment of damages.

7. 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 application for amendment of the written statement on February 2, 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.

8. 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 was exempted from the application of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The trial court dismissed the application of the respondent.

9. The respondent presented a revision petition to 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.

10. 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) person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Section 4 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 cultivated 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 mortgagee in possession. It was, therefore, said that the respondent could raise the contention 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.

11. 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) belongin 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 determined 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.

12. 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 held on lease or from a local authority is Section 8. No other section of the Land Reforms Act apolies to these lands. Section 8 of the Karnataka 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 8 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is not applicable. Therefore, no question can be referred for determination by the Tribunal under Section 133.

13. The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 came into effect on December 13. 1961. The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 remained in force till the month of March, 1966. The respondent could not draw any support from that Act for protection against eviction. The land in question was outside the applicability of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection 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 Eviction) 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.

14. 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 September 14, 1963 (sic 1953) 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.

15. The High Court was clearly in error in referring to the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 determination of the plea taken by the respondent that he was protected by the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961. Counsel for the respondent did not support the judgment on that ground.

16. 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 expired 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.

17. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside. In view of the fact that no costs were allowed by the High Court, there will be no order as to costs.

Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore v. B.T Kampanna .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent’s Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore v. B.T Kampanna .

Comments