LexBIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER versus GULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BIRENDR,A PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER
v.
GULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS
Jan11ary 31, 1968
A
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.]
B
U.P. Znmi11dari Abolition & Reforms Act, 1950, s. 19(vii)-person
in possession of lane/ heco11Jing a Sirdt1r by vir1ue of being
sub~tenc'1t
undt: s. 47( 4) of U.P. Tenancy Ac1, 1939-req11iremen1s for-Suh./ense
signed prinr In coming inin force of s. 295A of I 939 Act but to take efJect
.o;ubsequently-if .s. 295A applicahlt'--Duration of lease mentioning
no
fixed period-pri11rioles for de1erfni11ing.
P held the ex-proprietary tenancy of certain lands and, on the 5th
Jur.~. 1947, executed a sub-lease in favour of the appellants which laid
down that !he tenancy \.•/as to con1mencc from lst Ju:y, 1947 an~ which
was regislered on the 22nd June.
On 15th January, 1951. P surrendered
his tenancy rights to th·.! landlord who in turn. executed a Jeruje in respect
of !he land in favour of the rrspondcn's.
The appellants ho\\·evcr con1i-
nucd in possession.
l"hc lJ.P. Zan1indari Aboliiion and Land Reforms
Act. I 950 came into force on I st July, 1952 and both the appellants as well
~s the rc!<ipond·.::nts claimed to have become Sirdars of the land under the
Act.
The appellant.s instiluled 'a suit for a doclaration that they had be·
come Sirdars of the land under s. 19(vii) by virtue of being suh-tenants
within the meaning nf s. 47(4) of the U.P. Tenancy
Act.
1939. The
·rrial Court decreed the st.:it in the appcllan~· 'favour but a Division Bench
of the High Court ~et asid·~ the decree.
In appeal to this Court it \\'as contended, inter alia, on behalf of the
appellants that although P had suuendered his rights as ex-proprietary
tenant on I 5th January. 1951, their own sub-tenancy continued by virtue
of the provisions of s. 295A of the Tenancy Ac! which was introduced
into that Act by the amendment Act X of 1947 that came into force on
the 14th June. I 947; it was cla'med that s. 295A became applicable to
the appellants becaus·! a suh-Jease in their favour was executed on 5th
June. 1947. prior to the enforcement of Act X of !947 so that on the
da'e of commencen1ent of this Act the appell1nts continued to be the sub-
tenants under s. 295A; ii was further contended that though the sub-lease
in favour of the appellants \\-·as not for any fixed tcrn1 mentioned in the .sub-
lease itself. it should be held from the surrouhding facts and circumslanccs
that the sub-lease was for a period of five y-~ars as. under the Tenancy
Act. an ex-proprietary tenant could sublet hie:; holding for a period not
cxc-:!edin~ 5 vears
..
HELD: The appellants' possession subsequent to 30th
June.
1951
could not be held lo be in pursuance of a right conf~rred. on a sub-tenant
hy '· 47(4) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and consequently. the land was
not held by the appellants in the capacity mentioned in s. I9(vii) of the
U.P. Zan1indari 'Abolition and Land Ref0rn1'i Acl. 1950.
(i) "rhe appellants \Vere not suh-tenants on 14t!i June. 1947 which was
D
E
F
G
the date of commencement of the U.P. AC'! X of !947 and. therefore,
H
s. 295A of the Tenancy Act never becnme applicable to their case.
The
sub-leac;e clearly laid down that the suh-lenancy was to commence from
1st July. 1947 which was a date subseQuent to 14th June, 1947.
The
I
'
c
•
•
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BIRENDRA v. GULWANT
871
mere fact that the sub-lease was executed on 5th June, 1947 by P could
not mean that the appellants' sub-lease was with effect from that date.
~{ere delivery of the leas-e and its counter-part by one party to the
other as envisaged under s. 55(1) of the Tenancy Act does not make the
lessee under th:: lease a lessee fron1 the date of delivery of the written
documents nor is any such principle laid down in s 55(1 ). Fu'rthermore
it was in any case not shown. on the
facts,
such delivery had taken
place prior to 14th June, 1947. [874 G-HJ
(ii) Nothing in the conduct of the parties had been brought on re-
cord to show that the sub-lease was intended to remain effective for ·a
period of 5 years and on the facts of •he case the sub-lease must be. held
to be from year to year and the appellants' rights determined accordingly.
Mohd. Sher Khan & Anr. v. Sp<cia/
Manager,
Court of Wards,
Mahewa Estate and Or.t. 1950 A.W.R. 447; distinguished.
Surendra Ktonar Sen Chaudhury & Ors. v. Chandratara Na:h & Ors.,
A.LR. 1931, Cal. 135 and Janaki Nath Roy and Ors. v. Dina Nat/1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.