Supreme Court of India
JAGAN@JAGANNATH UMAJIversusGOKULDAS HIRALAL TAWARI
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 300
- Decided
- 28 October 1987
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- M M DUTT
Holding
The appellant is a deemed tenant under Section 6(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
Summary
The appellant, the son of a temple priest, cultivated three agricultural plots belonging to the respondent landlord and received the entire crop as payment for his services as pujari and caretaker of dharamshalas. The landlord sued for possession, and the lower authorities initially held the appellant to be a tenant, a view later reversed by the High Court, which ruled that he could not claim the rights of a deemed tenant. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 6(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, which deems a person a tenant if he lawfully cultivates land not personally cultivated by the owner and is not a family member, a cash‑wage servant, or a hired labourer. The Court found that the appellant was not a family member, not a hired labourer, and was paid solely by crop share, thus falling outside the exception in clause (b). Consequently, he was held to be a deemed tenant under the Act. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the lower order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a person who cultivates land as a servant and receives the entire crop as remuneration qualifies as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 6(1) of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act.
- Whether the exception in clause (b) of Section 6(1) applies when the servant is paid in crop share rather than cash wages.
- Whether the landlord falls within any class excluded from the tenant's right to purchase land under Section 41(2).
Legislation cited
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948s. 4
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958s. 2(32), s. 41, s. 46, s. 6(1)
Subjects
deemed tenantagricultural tenancycrop share remunerationland possession suitBombay Tenancy ActVidarbha regionreligious service employment
Judgment
JAGAN@JAGANNATH UMAJI ' .,
A v. )te"..,..
GOKULDAS HIRALAL TAWARI
OCTOBER 28, 1987
B [M.M. DUTT AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) >-·
-
Act, 1958-Whether the appellant was a deemed tenant of the lands he
was cultivating, under section 6 thereof
Under an agreement with the respondent-landlord, the appellant
c had been appointed to do worshipping in a temple as pujari to look after
the management of two dharamshalas and to cultivate three agricul-
.l,-
tural, lands, and for all these services, he had been allowed to take crop
share-the whole crop from the lands cultivated by him, instead of his
being paid any wages in cash. The respondent filed a suit for possession
D of the agricultural lands. The appellant's defence was that he was a
deemed tenant as understood under section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and was in lawful
cultivation of the lands. The Naib-Tahsildar, who decided the suit,
passed an order, holding the appellant to be a tenant. The Sub-
Divisional Officer, in appeal by the respondent, set aside the order of \,.._,,
E the Naib-Tahsildar and remanded the matter. Against the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, the appellant appealed in revision to the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal set aside the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and restored that of the Naib- ~
Tahsildar. The respondent moved the High Court. The High Court
decided that the appellant was not entitled to claim the rights of a
F deemed tenant, and quashed the orders of the authorities below holding '
the contrary view. The appellant appealed to this Court by Special Leave
against the order of the High Court. ~
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
G HELD: The appellant was lawfully cultivating the lands, having
been permitted to do so by the landlord. He was not a member of the
landlord's family, nor was he his hired labourer. The landlord did not
belong to any of the classes specified in Sub-Section (2) of section 41. ·~
The appellant was rendering service as pujari and the service ot looking
after the dharamshalas, and for these services, he had been given the
H right to cultivate the lands and appropriate the crop share-the entire
672
JAGANNATH v. GOKULDAS [KANIA, .J.] 673
,. crop instead of being paid any wages in cash. The appellant was not hit A
;.,., by the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act,
and he must be held to be a deemed tenant under the provisions of
section 6. [676G-H; 677B-Cl
Dahya Lal and others v. Rasul Mohammad Abdul Rahim, [1963]
3 S.C.R. 1at6, 7, referred to. B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
\
668(N) of 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.1970 of the Bombay
High Court in S.C.A. No. 789 of 1969.
c
E.C. Agarwala, Vijay Pandita and. Atul Sharma for the
Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judg-
ment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
The facts necessa;y for the disposal of the Appeal can be shortly
stated. The Respondent before us, who was the petitioner before the
Bombay High Court, is the owner of three agricultural lands described E
in the judgment appealed against, situated at Talkhed, Taluk
Malkapur, District Buldana in the Vidarbha area of Maharashtra.
Originally, these fields belonged to one Hiralal who died in 1916.
Hiralal started the construction of a dharamshala and a temple in 1912
in the said lands which construction was completed by the Respon-
dent's mother during the minority of the Respondent. The Respon- F
dent's mother also constructed another dharamshala on a separate
piece of land. The facts on record show that Umaji, the father of the
Appellant, was appointed a Pujari by the then landlord to worship the
idols in the aforesaid temple and to look after the management of the
dharam3halas on behalf of the landlord. Under an agreement with the
landlord, the aforesaid three agricultural lands were cultivated by G
Umaji but instead of being paid in cash for the services rendered by
him to the landlord in the form of looking after the management of the
property and worshipping in the temple, Umaji was allowed to culti-
vate the said fields and to take the crops. The Appellant is the son of
Umaji and records show that, after the death of Umaji, he was given
the same work as Umaji on the same terms and conditions. On H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C.R.
A February 12, 1963, the Appellant was served with a notice calling upon
him to hand over the belongings of the temple as well as the immov- 'r-*'
able property to the Respondent. The Respondent then filed a suit for
possession of the aforesaid lands in which the Appellant took a de-
fence that he was a tenant of these lands and protected under !he
relevant legislation against eviction. The issue whether the Appellant
B was the tenant of the said lands was framed and referred to the
Tahsildar for decision.
The aforesaid issue was decided in the first instance by the Naib
Tahsildar. Before him the Appellant contended that he was a deemed
tenant as understood under Section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and
C Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Vidarbha Tenancy Act'). It was contended by the Appellant
that he was in lawful cultivation of the said agricultural lands and
should be declared to be a tenant. The Respondent, on the other hand,
reiterated his claim that the Appellant was not a tenant. The Naib
Tahsildar passed an order on November 30, 1965 holding that the
D Appellant was the tenant in respect of the said lands because he was
lawfully cultivating the said lands which belonged to the Respondent.
Against this order the Respondent herein filed an appeal. The Sub.
Divisional Officer, who decided the appeal, set aside the order ofNaib
Tahsildar and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry on several issues
including the issue as to how the Appellant herein came to be in·
E possession of the said lands. The Appellant then filed a revision appli-
cation before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against this decision.
The Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer and restored the order of the Naib Tahsildar. The Tribunal
took notice. of the admission of the Respondent that the Appellant
herein was cultivating the said lands lawfully and on this basis came to
F the conclusion that the Appellant herein was the tenant of the said
lands. This conclusion of the Tribunal was challenged by the Respon-
dent herein b!'fore the Bombay High Court.
The learned Judge, who disposed of the Special Civil Applica-
tion or writ petition noted that it was not in dispute that the Appellant
G was cultivating the said lands but he was doing so and appropriating
the crop in lieu of payment of s~rvices which he rendered to the land-
lord as the Pujari worshipping the Gods in the said temple and looking
after the management of the dharamshalas. Instead of being paid in
cash for these services, the Appellant was allowed to cultivate the
fields and take the crops thereof. The learned Judge came to the
H conclusion that, on these facts, the lawful cultivation of the fields by
JAGANNATH v. GOKULDAS [KANIA, J.] 675
the .Appellant was referable to a particular contract which alone must A
govern the relationship between the parties. That contract constituted
or created a relationship of employer and employee. It was held that
the Appellant herein was an employee of the Respondent in his capac-
ity ;is a Pu jari and person looking after the management of the
dharamshalas. On these facts, the learned Judge came to the conclu-
sio11 that the Appellant herein was not entitled to claim the rights of a B
dee:med tenant, and held that the decision to the contrary arrived at by
the' Tribunal was erroneous and liable to be set aside. The learned
Jud,ge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order made by the
Tritlmnal and the Revenue Authorities and held that the Appellant had
faiJttd to prove that he was a tenant of the said agricultural lands. It is
- . tbilS conclusion of the learned Judge which is challenged in this appeal.
The contention of Mr. Aggarwala, learned counsel for the
c
Appellant, is that his client was admittedly in lawful possession of the
lands in question and was cultivating the same at the relevant time. In
view of this, it must he held that he was a deemed tenant of the said
lands under the provisions of Section 6 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act D
and the Respondent was not entitled to evict him. It was submitted by
him that the learned Judge of the High Court who disposed of the
Special Leave Application was in error when he proceeded on the
footing that the Appellant was not the tenant of the said lands as the
right to cultivate the lands and appropriate the produce was given to
him and his father earlier as the Pujari of the aforesaid temple and for E
looking after the management of the dharamshalas and the said lands.
- It was urged by him that even if the Appellant could be said to be a
servant of the Respondent, he was admittedly in lawful personal culti-
vation of the. said lands and was not paid in cash or kind but by way of a
crop share, the crop share being equivalent to the entire crop. The
F
Respondent has not chosen to appear before us.
In order to examine the correctness of the aforesaid contentions
of Mr. Aggarwala, we may, at this stage, take note of the relevant
provisions of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. The term 'tenant' is defined
in sub-section (32) of Section 2 of that Act as follows: G
"(32) 'tenant' means~ person who holds land on lease and
includes-
(a) person who is deemed to be a tenant under
Sections 6, 7 or 8, H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.
(b) a person who is a protected Jessee or occupancy
A
tenant and the word 'landlord' shall be cons-
trued accordingly".
Under sub-section ( 17) of Secti\:m 2, land, inter alia, means, land
which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and
B includes the sites of farm building appurtenant to such land. Sub-
section ( 1) of Section 6 which is the material provision before us runs
as follows: )>-
"6. Persons deemed to be tenants. I '
j
( 1) A person lawfully cultivating any land belongi·ng
c to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if suc,h
land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such
person is not-
(a) a member of the owner's family, or
D
(b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not
in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the
land under the personal supervision of the owner
or any member of the owner's family, or
E (c) a mortgage in possession."
Section 41 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act deals with the right of a tenant
to purchase land held by him as a tenant. Under the provisions of that
Act, a tenant other than an occupancy tenant shall be entitled to
purchase from the landlord the land held by him as a tenant and
cultivated by him personally except whether the landlord belongs to
-
any category specified in sub-section (2). Section 46 of the Vidarbha
Tenancy Act, inter alia, provides that with effect on and from the first
day of April, 1961, the ownership of all lands held by tenants which
they are entitled to purchase from their landlords under the provisions
of Chapter III of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act shall stand transferred to
G and vested in such tenants.
As far as the case before us _is concerned as we have already
pointed out that the Appellant was admittedly cultivating the lands in ~
question and was not a member of the landlord's family nor was he a
hired labourer. The landlord did not belong to any of the classes
H specified in sub-section (2) of Section 41. The aforesaid cultivation was
JAGANNATH v. GOKULDAS [KANIA, J.l 677
""-( clearly lawful because the Respondent to whom the lands belonged
A
had permitted him to do so. It is tn1e that the record shows that this
right to cultivate the land and appropriate the produce was given to the
Appellant because of the services he was performing as a Pujari of the
aforesaid temple of the Respondent and as he was looking after the
dharamshalas. By reason of these facts, it might be said that he was
cultivating the said lands as a servant of the Respondent, but he was B
not being paid any wages ln cash or kind but by way of a crop share,
-A the share being the entire crop. In these circumstances, he must be
held to be a deemed tenant of the said lands under the provisions of
Section 6 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. The fact of his cultivating the
land as a servant of th.e Respondent would make no difference because
he was being paid for his services by way of a crop share and hence was
_ ...l_ not covered by the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) of Section c
1
· 6. The learned Judge of the High ·Court was in error in coming to the
conclusion that, merely because the Appellant was a servant of the
Respondent, he could not be held to be a tenant in respect of the said
lands. The learned Judge altogether failed to notice that although the
appellant was a servant, he was not given wages payable either in cash D
or kind but by way of a crop share and hence not covered by the
exception carved out by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6.
From the observations made by the learned Judge, it appears that he
proceeded on the wrong footing that in order to be a deemed tenant, a
·---.......(. person must show that his lawful cultivation owes its origin to some
sort of tenancy. In fact, the whole aim of Section 6 is to confer deemed E
tenancy upon persons who are not already tenants of the land in q ues-
- 1
tion. We may point out that this conclusion finds some support from
the decision of this Court in Dahya Lal and Others v. Rasul
Mohammed Abdul Rahim, [1963] 3 S.C.R. I at pp 6-7 decided by a
Bench of five learned Judges of this Court. Jn that case the provision
which came up for consideration was Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy F
-~and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, the material portion of which runs as
follows:
"A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to
another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land
is not ...... " G
' ~ It was held that this Act encompassed with its beneficent provisions
not only tenants who held land for purpose of cultivation under con-
tracts from the land owners but persons who are deemed to be the
tenants.
H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] I S.C.R.
A 1n· the result, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment · r·• ·
and order of the High Court are set aside and the order of Naib
Tahsildar, confirmed by Revenue Tribunal, is restored.
There will be no order as to the costs of the Appeal.
B Appeal allowed.
S.L.
-
-
r·
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "deemed tenant"Sign in to search