# CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE v. B. T. KAMP ANNA

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 269
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 623 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/corporation-of-the-city-of-bangalore-v-b-t-kamp-anna-6913
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

269
The Kc..rnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Ss. 107 and 133-fVhtther app/ical>!e to land unauthorisedly held after expiry of lease.
The respondent took the disputed land on lease for
5 years
from the
appellant Corporation, and held it unauthorisedly after the lease-period expired.
His suit for a permanent injunction against interferehce with his possession,
was dismissed, and his appeal rejected. The appellant then instituted the suit
A
B
.in appeal, claiming possession. The suit was decreed and the respondent was
C
directed to deliver possession.
On appeal, the High Court remanded the case.
Upon remand, the respondent applied for an amendment of his written state-·
meht, claimin~. protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He
alw applied for 'a stay of the suit by the Civil Court, and for a reference
to the Tribunal for deciding whether he was a tenant or not. The applicatioh
was dismissed, but on revi~on, the High Court reversed the decision.
The
principal question in appeal before this Court was whether S. 107 of the
Karnataka Land Ref'orms Act, 1961, was applicable to the disputed lahd heldi
D
by the respondent.
Allowing the appeal, the COurt,
HELD : Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 makes it
-quite clear that the only provision which applies to lands belonging to or held
on lease or from a local authority is section 8.
There is no dispute that the
lease was determihec! by efflux of time. The question whether the respondent
is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not arise because the tenancy came
to an end. Section 8 is not applicable.
Therefore no question can be referE
-red for determination by the Tribunal under section 133.
Section 133 cannot
apply where the lease had expired and the local authority sues for possession on
the ground that there is unauthorised occupation. [271 D, E, F, 272 CJ

## Text

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE
v.
B. T. KAMP ANNA
August 20, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
269
The Kc..rnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Ss. 107 and 133-fVhtther app/ical>!e to land unauthorisedly held after expiry of lease.
The respondent took the disputed land on lease for
5 years
from the
appellant Corporation, and held it unauthorisedly after the lease-period expired.
His suit for a permanent injunction against interferehce with his possession,
was dismissed, and his appeal rejected. The appellant then instituted the suit
A
B
.in appeal, claiming possession. The suit was decreed and the respondent was
C
directed to deliver possession.
On appeal, the High Court remanded the case.
Upon remand, the respondent applied for an amendment of his written state-·
meht, claimin~. protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He
alw applied for 'a stay of the suit by the Civil Court, and for a reference
to the Tribunal for deciding whether he was a tenant or not. The applicatioh
was dismissed, but on revi~on, the High Court reversed the decision.
The
principal question in appeal before this Court was whether S. 107 of the
Karnataka Land Ref'orms Act, 1961, was applicable to the disputed lahd heldi
D
by the respondent.
Allowing the appeal, the COurt,
HELD : Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 makes it
-quite clear that the only provision which applies to lands belonging to or held
on lease or from a local authority is section 8.
There is no dispute that the
lease was determihec! by efflux of time. The question whether the respondent
is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not arise because the tenancy came
to an end. Section 8 is not applicable.
Therefore no question can be referE
-red for determination by the Tribunal under section 133.
Section 133 cannot
apply where the lease had expired and the local authority sues for possession on
the ground that there is unauthorised occupation. [271 D, E, F, 272 CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 623 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-6-74 of the Kamataka
'High Court in Civil Revision No 1981/73.
F
S. S. Javali and B. P. Singh, for the Appellants.
S. V. Gupte and K. N. Bhatt, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.-This appeal by special ~eave is from the judgment
G
·dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court.
_
The principal question in this appeal whether section 107 of :the
.Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which
~as leased to the respondent.
A large plot ofland comprising an area of about 20 acres popu-
:Iarly known as "The Chamaraja Sewage Farm" situate in the city of
Bangalore belongs to the appellant
Corporation.
The
appellant
]eased to the respondent by a registered lease dated 14 September,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
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.
·
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 effiux of time.
The respondent's suit was dismissed.
An appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed on 21 August,
1964.
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 No.
15
of 1961.
Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 provided for prohibition against eviction.
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.
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 appHcation for amendment of the written statement on 2 February 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.
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.
The respondent presented a reviision 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.
CORPORATION OF BANGALORE V. B. T. KAMPANNA (Ray, C.J.) 271
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) a person who is
deemed to be a tenant under section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 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 mortgage 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.
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) belonging 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 detrmined by effiux 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.
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 applies 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 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 is not applicable. Therefore, no question can be referred
for· de,termination by the Tribunal under section 133.
The Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act,
1961 came into effect on 13 December, 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
questioo 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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
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 14 September 1963 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 resp_ondent, who was a trespasser.
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
Teiaants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act 1961. Counsel
for the respondent did not support the judgment on that ground.
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
~uthority.
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.
M.R.
Appeal allowed.