Bandi Krishnamurthy v. Pasupuleti Venkatesam

Chandra Reddy, C.J.:-

(1) This revision petition has been referred to a bench as it was felt that it raises an important question of law bearing on the interpretation of section 37 - a of the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1950 (xxi of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the act). The respondent moved the land tribunal under section 37 - a of the act, for conferment of protected tenancy in respect of the lands in dispute. The tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that he was neither in possession of the lands on 12th march, 1956, the date on which section 37 - a came into effect, nor was he able to establish that he was a bona fide tenant. On appeal, the collector remanded the case for spot enquiry and further investigation to the tribunal. After remand, the tribunal reached the same conclusion and rejected the petition.

(2) The respondent again carried the matter in appeal to the collector. The appellate authority while concurring in the opinion of the tribunal that the respondent had no possession of the properties in question on the relevant date, still held that he was entitled to protection under section 37 - a as it was proved that at one time he was in possession of these lands. It is this order of the collector that is sought to be revised in this petition. The question that falls for determination is whether section 37 - a of the act contemplates actual or lawful possession at the commencement of the act or possesssion at any time prior to the coming into operation of the act. At this stage it is convenient to read section 37 - a in so far as it has a bearing on this enquiry. Section 37 - a reads : " notwithstanding anything contained in this act, every person who at the commencement of the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands (amendment) act, 1955, holds as tenant any land in respect of which he is not deemed to be a protected tenant under this act, shall be deemed to be a protected tenant if the total area of the land owned by the landholder including the land under the cultivation of his tenants is more than three times the area of a family holding for the local area concerned : it is manifest from the language of this section that except in cases of persons who are deemed to be protected tenants, to enable a person to have recourse to that section he should be holding any land as a tenant. Section 34 of the act enumerates the persons who are deemed to be protected tenants and it is not necessary for us to catalogue them as admittedly the respondent is not one of those mentioned in that section. He falls outside the purview of section 34. Hence he must show that he is a person holding as tenant any land if he is to get the advantage of section 37 - a.

(3) The expression ' holding as tenant' has not been defined in the act. Section 2 (z) says :

" words and expressions used in this act but not defined therein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the hyderabad land revenue act (viii of 1317 - f.)"

so, we have to look at the definition of' holding land 'in the hyderabad land revenue act and that definition is contained in section 2 (6) of that act, which is in these words :

" 'to hold land ' or to be a " landholder " or " holder " of land means to be lawfully in possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. "

(4) Now, could it be said that a person is lawfully in possession of land at the commencement of the act merely because at sometime anterior to the commencement of the act he happened to cultivate the land for a short period. Indisputably, the respondent, had no possession, actual or lawful, on the date section 37 - a came into effect. The respondent is alleged to have obtained a lease of the lands in question from the original owner on 4th april, 1950, which is said to have been renewed on i5th may, 1954. That lease is of no validity having regard to the terms of section 6 read with section 9 of the act. There is a general prohibition of leases being 'made" after three years from the commencement of the act by virtue of section 6. Section 7 contains a saving clause which permits a lease in certain contingencies but in order to give validity to any lease the provisions of section 9 should be complied with. The ingredients of section 9 are not present in this case. It is for this reason that the respondent fell back upon the case of bis having been in possession of the lands in question sometime before the commencement of the act.

(5) In order to derive the benefits of section 37 - a, the person should be shown to have been in lawful possession of the land in question on the date of the commencement of the act. It is clear from the language of this section that the legislature wanted to confer benefit on a particular class of persons, namely, those who were in lawful possession of any land on that date. It is noteworthy that under section 37 only persons in possession of the land at the commencement of the main act that could be protected tenants, provided there were no persons deemed to be protected tenants under section 34. The legislature wanted to extend the benefits of this act by enacting section 37 - a also to persons who might be found to be in possession of any land on 12th march, 1956, the date on which section 37 - a was to come into force. Therefore, that benefit was to be got only by a limited class of persons set out in that section. We do not get any indication in that section that each and every person who happened to be in possession at one time or other was within the contemplation of that section.

(6) This view of ours is strenghtened by the judgment of this court in nervalla janiah v. Bairam saiga. (1959) 2 an. W r. 536.

(7) For these reasons, we hold that it is only a person who could establish his lawful possession at the commencement of the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands (amendment) act, 1955, as a tenant that is entitled to claim the advantages of section 37 - a and that the view of the district collector is unsustainable.

(8) In the result, the revision petition is allowed with costs throughout and the order under revision is set aside. Revision allowed.