LexANANGA BIJOY MITTRA versus TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' • 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 granUd- Aactrlainment of !he purpose of leau-Terms of applicalion for !tau lo be looked inlo-Agrieultural tenant--Dtfinilion of- JI01111ily 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 agri- cultural 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 "~ 1962 1962 An•lll!' BijoJ Mit1111 v. Tata Iron & Stnl Co •• I.ta .• 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. purpose" the appellant was raiyat within the meaning of s. 6 of the Act. Held, that .)he ~tatement of the purpose had to be con- sidered alongwit\1 the other facts mentioned in the doeument, viz. that the application was for a monthly tenancy, and that the applicant agr~ed 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 respon- dent No. I. ' 1962. November 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by v.,a.p1., 1. DAS GUPTA, J.-The subject-ma~ter 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 '. r 2 S.C.R~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3 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. The Trial Court (The Additional Munsif, Ja,mshedpur),. accepted the defence plea that the tenancy created. in fav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.