The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal held that a lease for garden purposes with monthly tenancy terms and agreement to house-building rules was not agricultural tenancy. Thus, the tenant did not acquire occupancy rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The eviction decree was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'
1962
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANANGA BIJOY MITTRA
ti.
TATA IRON lit STEEL CO., LTD.
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHoo, K. C. DAB Gul'TA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Land Tenure-Applicalion for lea8e-Lea8e granUdAactrlainment of !he purpose of leau-Terms of applicalion for !tau lo be looked inlo-Agrieultural tenant--Dtfinilion ofJI01111ily tenaney-UndertakitlJI to abide by houae buildiflJI rulea- Nol a Raiyat-Liabk to eviclion-Chotonagpur Tenancy Acl, 1908 (Ben. 6 of 1908), "· 4(2), 6.
•
The predecessor in interest of the present appellant applied to the land officer of the re•pondents for the settlement of the subject matter of dispute, situated inJamshedpur. The land was let out to him as tenant from month to month at a rent of Re. I/- per month. There was no document creating the lease. The application for settlement contained averments to the effect that the applicant wanted it ''for garden purposes" that he agreed to hold the land "on monthly tenancy''. and that he would abide by the "house buHdirig mies". , Following a ootice to quit the respondents who arc the owners of the plot filed a suit for eviction of the appellant and for arrears of rent: The defence raised was that there was no monthly tenancy and the I~ was for agricultural and horticultural purposes and the appcllarit W'lS an agricultural tenant within the meaning of ss. 4 and 6 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act who has fixity of tenure. The trial court upheld the contention and on appeal it was confinncd by the Subordinate Judge. On second appeal the High Court of Patna held that the lease was not for agricultural piirposcs and ordered eviction. The pre•ent appe? 1 is by way of special leave granted by this Court.
The main contentipn before this Court was that •ince the applicatiol!. for Jeale m.dc it clear #lat the liµid wq for "~
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
1962 purpose" the appellant was raiyat within the meaning of s. 6 of the Act. An•lll!' BijoJ Mit1111 v. Held, that .)he tatement of the purpose had to be con- Tata Iron & Stnl sidered alongwit\1 the other facts mentioned in the doeument, Co •• I.ta .• viz. that the application was for a monthly tenancy, and that the applicant agred to abide by the house building rules. On such considerati6n, it was clear that the lease was not for horticultural or agricultural purposes.
CIVIL APPELLATE jURTSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1960. ,
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dat¢ ,March 26, 1958, of the Patna High CotJrt in Second Appeal No. 1330of1954.
N. 0. Chatterjee and R. 0. Prasad, for the appellant.
8. N. Andley and 8. P. Varma, for the respondent No. I. '
v.,a.p1., 1. DAS GUPTA, J.-The subject-mater of this litigation is a'· plot of land measuring 1267 sq. ft. in the Sakchi New Planning area in the town of Jamshedpur. OQJune 23;1937, Abdul Gani, through whom the present appellant claims to be interested in the land, applied for settlement of this plot of Jand to the Land Officer of the owner of the land, the Tata Iron an Steel Company Ltd. The applicatio~ was allowed and the land was let out to Abdul Gani as a tenant from month to month at .a rent of Re: l/per month. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen· was brought in 1949 for ejectment o( the tenant after determination of the tenancy by a notice to quit the premises. There was also a prayer for arrears of rent at Re l/- per month.
'.
The defence of Abdul Gani was that he was an agriculturist tenant as contemplated under the
2 S.C.R~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3
r
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and not a monthly tenant and that no monthly rent was paid for the land. It was. also pleaded that the lease being for agricultural and horticultural purposes ·at an annual rent, the defendant acquired a valid occupancy right and was not liable to ejectment. The present appellant was added as a defendant by an order dated. May 25, 1953. He also filed a written statement contending that by operation of the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, Abdul Gani had acquired occupancy right, that.the purpose for which settlement was made with .Abdul·Gani could not create a monthly tenancy and the plaintiff was not entitled to Khas possession.
1962
'-toB~1 Mittra ·· v. T•l<l 1,.. at $1111 Co., Lid.
DuGu/>la, J.
The Trial Court (The Additional Munsif, Ja,mshedpur),. accepted the defence plea that the tenancy created. in favour of Abdul Gani was agricultural, that 'A.bdul Gani had acquired an occupancy raiyat's . right · therein and as . the tenancy Act was governed by tlie tJhotanagpur Tenancy Act the suit was, not triable by a civil court. Accordingly, he dismissed t~e suit. ·
On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, Singhbhum, agreed .with the findipgs of the Trial Court that the holding was agricultu_ral and therefore governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act .and accordingiy affirmed the judgment.and decree of the Trial Court.
. . . .The High Court of Judicature at Patna however !ian}e · to the condusfon in Second Appeal that the Iease.~as not for agricultural and horticultural purposeii and there was no question of the defendant having acquired the right of occupancy in the land. The High Court allowed the aJ>peal, set aside the judgment and decree of.the courts below and decreed the plaintiff's suit.
Against this decision of the High Court this appeal hasJieen .filed by special leave granted by this Court.
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
19112
19112 In support of the appeal it is urged before us A••P Bijoy by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, that the High Court erred
Mittra in holding that the lease was not for agricultural or •• Talo /,,. GI Sw/ horticultural purposes. He points out that the appli- Ca., Lid. cation for lease of the land mentions "garden purpose" as the purpose of the tenancy and argues that D., G•pla, /. that is sufficient to make Abdul Gani a raiyat within the meaning of s. 6 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Section 4 of the Act states that for the purpose of this Act there shall be four classes of tenants, name! y, (I) tenure-holders, (2) raiyats, (3) under-raiyats and ( 4) Munderi Khunt-kattidars. Admittedly and obviously, Abdul Gani was not a tenant under classes 1, 3 and 4 and the only way he could come within the ambit of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was by being a "raiyat" as mentioned in class (2). . "Raiyat" is defined in s. 6 of this Act to mean "primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners ; and includes the succrssors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right ......... " It has been settled by a number of decisions of the Calcutta and the Patna High Courts that the purpose of planting an orchard comes within "the purpose of cultivation." If it appear.; that Abdul Gani took lease of the land in dispute for the purpose of growing an orchard he clearly became a raiyat under the Chotan3g{>ur Tenancy Act. While there is no document creating the lease we have, in the present case, Abdul Gani's application f9r lrase a11d the landlord's order granting the lease. The application is in these words :-
"I beg to apply for a plot of land measuring 1267 sq.ft. in Sakchi New Planning for Garden Purpose and for permission to retain one step in the east side.
,
I agree to hold the land on monthly tenancy and to abide by the terms and conditions of th"
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
5
Company and the house building rules. I also agree to abide by the rules and bye-laws of the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee in force from time to time.
I agree to pay the security deposit to be fixed by you in respect of my tenancy as soon as the plot is allotted to me and shall submit the plan of my proposed house· for approval of the Chief Town Engineer before I start construction.
1961
Ananga Bijoy Mittra v.
T~ta Tron & Stul Co., Lt,,
!Jas G11pt11, J.
I therefore request that you will kindly allot me a plot of land in the above mentioned Basti on your usual terms."
Mr. Chatterjee fastens on the words "for garden purpose" and argues that that shows clearly that the purpose was to grow an orchard. It will not be proper however to look only at this one phrase "for garden purpose" and to ignore the rest of the docu· ment. It has to be noticed that after stating in the first sentence that he wanted the land "for garden purpose" Abdul Gani stated in the next paragraph that he agreed to hold the land "on monthly tenancy" and again that he agreed "to abide by the terms and conditions of the Company and the house building rules." It is difficult to conceive of a lease for culti· vation being taken on a monthly tenancy~ It is even more difficult to understand why Abdul .Gani would agree "to abide by the house building rules" if the purpose was only to grow an orchard. These two facts, namely, that the land would be held on monthly tenancy and the tenant would abide by the house· building rules, have to be considered along with the earlier statement that the land was being applied "for garden purpose." The terms of the application for lease are, in our opinion, sufficient to show that the lease was not for an agricuh.ural or horticultural pur· pose. In view of this, it is unnecessary to investigate how the land was actually used. It may be mentioned however that if one did examine the evidence to
1
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
1962 find out such user, it becomes clear that while a part of the land was used for growing some guava trees Ana,.ga Bijo7 Miltro and some flowers, a pacca room was also erected on a Tai. Tron v. & Stul portion of the land. On a cousideration of all these C.., Lid. things we find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the purpose of the lease was not agricul- DasGupto, I. tural or horticultural.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Appe,al dismissed.
1962 VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPPA KADAMPUR
ti.
THE STATE OF MYSORE
(S. J. IMAM, K. C. DAs GuPl'A and RA.GHUBAR I)AYA.L, lJ.)
Oriminal Law-Police O.fliur preparing /aloe report-" Act clone under colour of duty'', Meaning of-Statute provi<ling time limit for pro&ecution-Validity of conviction-Indian Penal Gode 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), 8. 218-Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bam. 22 of 1951), 88. 64, 161(1).
The appellant, a Head Constable, was charged with an offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on February 23, 1954, on receipt of information that some persons were attempting to smuggle Ganja, the appellant caught N with a bundle containing 15 packets of Ganja and seized them, that he thep prepared a Panchnama in which he incorrectly showed the seizure of 9 packets of Ganja only, and that on the next day he, however, prepared a new report in which it was falsely recited that the person with the bundle ran away on seeing the police after throwing away the bundle containing 9 packets of Ganja only. The allegation against the appellant was that he prepared a false report with
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a tenant who applied for land for garden purposes, agreed to monthly tenancy, and accepted house-building rules is a 'raiyat' under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Whether the tenancy was for agricultural purposes attracting protection of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ananga Bijoy Mittra
Tata Iron and Steel Company, Ltd.
B. P. Sinha
P. B. Gajendragadkar
K. N. Wanchoo
K. C. Deshmukh
J. C. Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
