RAMRAO KRISHNARAO Vs. SHIVGOVIND PRANPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made to us by a single Judge in a second appeal arising out of a suit, for ejectment of the respondents from certain. Inam lands situated in indore. The question referred to us for opinion is in substance whether the heirs of a deceased tenant of Inam, lands, whose tenancy came to an end by efflux of the time limited thereby, are tenants or ordinary tenants for the purposes of Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection act, 1954.

(2.) THE question arises thus. The appellant instituted a suit against Shivgovind for ejectment from Inam lands in suit, arrears of rent and mesne profits on the allegation that the lands in question belonging to him were first leased out to the defendant for Fasli year 1357; that they were again leased out to him for the Fasli year 1358; that the defendant remained in arrears of rent and that thereupon he gave a notice to the defendant on 29th May 1949, to vacate the land at the end of the year, but that he failed to do so and continued in possession. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed ejectment, Rs. 575 as arrears of rent and Rs. 1,062 as mesne profits. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds, namely, that he was not in default in the payment of rent, that he had made improvements on the land, and that the notice to quit was illegal. The City civil Judge, Indore, who tried the suit, held that the lease was for a fixed term which terminated by efflux of time; that the notice for ejectment given on 29th may 1949, by the plaintiff was merely by way of intimation; and that it was legal. Accordingly, he gave to the plaintiff a decree for ejectment and for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. In appeal, the Additional District Judge of indore took the view that the lease was from year to year and that though Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, did not apply to agricultural leases, yet on general principles a reasonable notice to The plaintiff then preferred a second appeal in the madhya Bharat High Court. After the riling of the appeal, the original defendant shivgoviod died and his legal representatives, who are the respondents in this appeal, were brought on record. The appeal was heard by my learned brother nevaskar, J. , and even disposed of on 28th November 1955, by setting aside the decision of the Additional District Judge of Jnaore and decreeing the plaintiff's claim in full on the finding that Shivgovind's tenancy was for a year and came to an end by efflux of time. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal the respondents had filed an application on 27th January 1955, praying that the hearing of the appeal be stayed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and sub-tenants Protection Act, 1954. This application remained to be considered through some inadvertence. The respondents, therefore, filed a petition for a review of the decision of my learned brother pronounced on 28th November 1955. The learned single Judge granted the review petition and made an order -

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the question it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection Act, 1954. The Act was enacted to provide for temporary protection of tenants or ordinary tenants, sub-tenants, Muafidars, Inamdars, etc. , against their eviction and for the stay of suits and other proceedings relating to such eviction. It came into force on 15th December 1954, and was to be operative for two years. The Act was, however, amended in 1956 and its duration was extended to four years. Section 2 (ii) gives the definition of the words 'tenant, sub-tenant, ordinary tenant and rent'. It says -