CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE versus B. T. KAMPANNA

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 20-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE 
v. 
B. T. KAMP ANNA 
August 20, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
269 
The Kc..rnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Ss. 107 and 133-fVhtther app/i-
cal>!e to land unauthorisedly held after expiry of lease. 
The respondent took the disputed land on lease for 
5 years 
from the 
appellant Corporation, and held it unauthorisedly after the lease-period expired. 
His suit for a permanent injunction against interferehce with his possession, 
was dismissed, and his appeal rejected. The appellant then instituted the suit 
A 
B 
.in appeal, claiming possession. The suit was decreed and the respondent was 
C 
directed to deliver possession. 
On appeal, the High Court remanded the case. 
Upon remand, the respondent applied for an amendment of his written state-· 
meht, claimin~. protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He 
alw applied for 'a stay of the suit by the Civil Court, and for a reference 
to the Tribunal for deciding whether he was a tenant or not. The applicatioh 
was dismissed, but on revi~on, the High Court reversed the decision. 
The 
principal question in appeal before this Court was whether S. 107 of the 
Karnataka Land Ref'orms Act, 1961, was applicable to the disputed lahd heldi 
D 
by the respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, the COurt, 
HELD : Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 makes it 
-quite clear that the only provision which applies to lands belonging to or held 
on lease or from a local authority is section 8. 
There is no dispute that the 
lease was determihec! by efflux of time. The question whether the respondent 
is a tenant or deemed to be a tenant does not arise because the tenancy came 
to an end. Section 8 is not applicable. 
Therefore no question can be refer-
E 
-red for determination by the Tribunal under section 133. 
Section 133 cannot 
apply where the lease had expired and the local authority sues for possession on 
the ground that there is unauthorised occupation. [271 D, E, F, 272 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 623 of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-6-74 of the Kamataka 
'High Court in Civil Revision No 1981/73. 
F 
S. S. Javali and B. P. Singh, for the Appellants. 
S. V. Gupte and K. N. Bhatt, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C.J.-This appeal by special ~eave is from the judgment 
G 
·dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court. 
_ 
The principal question in this appeal whether section 107 of :the 
.Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which 
~as leased to the respondent. 
A large plot ofland comprising an area of about 20 acres popu-
:Iarly known as "The Chamaraja Sewage Farm" situate in the city of 
Bangalore belongs to the appellant 
Corporation. 
The 
appellant 
]eased to the respondent by a registered lease dated 14 September, 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual 
rent of Rs. 13,555/-. 
The respondent by notice was called upon 
to hand over possession of the land immediately after the expiry of 
the period of lease. The respondent failed to deliver possession. The· 
reason why the appellant required that land is that the Corporation 
proposed a scheme for the development and construction of a new 
township on that area. 
· 
The respondent filed a suit for the grant of a permanent injunc-
tion restraining the appellant from interfering with the 
possession .. 
The Court upheld the contentions of the appellant that the lease had 
terminated by effiux of time. 
The respondent's suit was dismissed. 
An appeal was preferred. The appeal was dismissed on 21 August, 
1964. 
The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claiming posses-
sion from the respondent. The appellant contended that the respon-
dent was a trespasser and claimed damages for unauthorised occupa-
tion. 
The respondent contended that he was still a tenant. The res-
pondent claimed protection under the Mysore Tenants (Temporary 
Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 being Act No. 
15 
of 1961. 
Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Evic-
tion) Act, 1961 provided for prohibition against eviction. 
The appellant obtained a decree in the suit. 
The decree direct-
ed the respondent to deliver possession. 
The respondent preferred an 
appeal. 
The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for 
assessment of damage

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.