UMDIRAM Vs. RAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by a Division Bench. The point referred to is: - - Whether a person holding under a lease (written or oral) for a fixed period is a tenant or a trespasser in the event of his retaining possession over the lease land after the expiry of the stipulated period (for purposes of ejectment)?

(2.) The circumstances leading to the reference shortly are that a Division Bench deciding the case Ghisa Vs. Gyarsa preferred in RRD 1958, 37 -39) came to the conclusion that a tenant remaining in possession after the expiry of the period fixed in the lease is a tenant for the purposes of ejectment and could not be ejected as a trespasser. In a subsequent case Bhonriya Vs. Devi Sahai another Division Bench arrived at a different view i.e. a person retaining possession after the expiry of his fixed term becomes a trespasser, as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As the same question arose before the Bench seized of the present case by this reference it seeks a decision of Full Bench to resolve the divergence of the views expressed in the two aforementioned cases on the same point of law,

(3.) We have heard shri Roop chand Sogani and Shri Madan Mohan Tiwari appearing for the two opposite view?, Ski Sogani supported the view taken in Ghisa Vs. Gyarsa. His contention is that a tenancy commencing under a lease does not extinguish by merely efflux of time and therefore notwithstanding the fact that the stipulated period in a lease has expired, the tenancy remains in tact. Therefore a person holding under such a lease would be a tenant and cannot be trespasser. Shri Tiwari appearing for the opposite view i.e. the one taken in Bhonriya Vs. Devi Sahai placed reliance on the definition of the word trespasser as given in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and in support of his contention relied upon a High Court decision, A.I.R. 1957 -362.