NATHU PRASAD versus RANCHHOD PRASAD & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 06-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
6(3 
NATHU PRASAD 
v. 
RANCBHOD PRASAD & ORS. 
October 6, 1969 
[J, C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, 11.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (20 o/ 1959), •. 185(i)(ii) (b)-
Occupancy Rights-If enures to persons inducted as tenant• In contraven-
tion of•· 73, Revenue Administration and Ryotwarl Land and Revenue and 
Tenancy A.ct Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950)-Madhya Bharat 
Ryotwari 
Sufl.k•see I'rotectlon Act (29 of 1955.l. 
The respondents were inducted a• sub-lessees in contravention of ~. 73 
of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwaij Land Revenue •nd Tenancy 
Act, 1950. On the question whether they acquired rights as occupancy 
tenants under s. 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue 
Code. 1959. 
HELD: A person inducted as a sub-lessee, but who by expres; pro-· 
vision contained in s. 73 read with s, 78 of Act 66 of 1950 is declared a 
trespasser, does not acquire the States of an occupancy te~ant und~r s. 
185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Prndesh Land Revenue Code. 
Act 29 of 
1955 conferred protection only upon 
a ryatwafi sub-les·see, 
and a 
ryotwari sub-lessee was defined in that Act as meaning a person in whose 
favour the land was settled. A person. the lease in whose favour \\'as 
declared void by virtue of Act 66 of 1950, could not claim the status of 
a. sub-lessee. That is so enacted in.s. 3 which excludes from the protection 
granted by Act 29 of 1955, »mongst others, a sub-lessee deemed t\l be a 
trespasser under s. 78 of Act 66 of 1950. A person mductod as a sub-
lessee contrary to the provisions of s. 73 of Act 66 of 1950 did not, there· 
fore, acquire any right undei' a contract of sub--letting, and his possession 
was not protected under Act 29 of 1955. Such a person is not a rvotwari 
sub-lessee defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-Jesse protection Act 
29 of 1955, and it is onJy on 'Ryotwari s11h-Jessee' as defined in that Act 
that the right of occupancv tenant i< conferred by s. 185(1 )(ii)(b) of 
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. [6.\6 El 
· 
The obsd'vation contra in Rao Niha/karan 
v. 
Ramchandra 
(1963] 
M.P.L.J. 314, disapproved. 
Civn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 
1966. 
Allpclll by s~cial leave from the judgment and decree dated 
July 9, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench 
in Second Appeal No. 254 of 1962. 
Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant. 
M. C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Cha11dhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, 
for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court ,,.,as delivered by 
Shah, J. Of Khasra Nos. 33 & 34 of Mahcshwar, District 
Xhargone, Madhya Pradesh, Nathu Prasad-hereinafter called 
'the plaintiff'-is the recorded pattedar tenant. On May 20, 
6H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
1955 he granted a sub-lease of the land, for a period of five 
years, to Ranchhod Prasad and Onkar Prasad-hereinafter col· 
lectively called 'the defendants'. On June 30, 1960 the plaintiff 
commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, MaheSh-
war against the defendants claiming that the sub-lease being in 
contravention of s. 73 of the 1:adhya Bharat Land Revenue and 
Tenancy Act 77 of 1950 the defendants were trespassers in the 
land. The defendants contended that the leMe was valid, 
and 
since the plaintiff had received consideration, he \Vas 
estopped 
from setting up the plea of invalidity of the lease. The Trial 
Court decreed the action, holding that the defendants were tres-
passers and could not acquire Bhumiswami rights claimed by 
them. 
The District Court agreed with the Trial Court. In 
second . appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the 
appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's action. 
In ·the view of the 
High Court the defendants had acquired rights as occupancy 
tenan:s under s. 185(l)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land 
Revenue Code. In so holding the High Court relied upon the 
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rao Nihalkara11 v. 
Ramchandra ( 1). With special leave, the plaintiff has appealed to 
this Court. 
:::ection 73 of the Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land 
Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 66 of 1950) 
provides : 
"No Pakka tenant shall sub-let for any period what-
soever any ·]and comprised in his holdings except in 
the cases provided for in section 74. 
Explanation :-
" 
Section 74 deals with sub-letting by disabled persons. 
Since the 
plaintiff is not a disabled persdn, the section need not be read. 
Seciion 7 5 provides : 
"A sub-lease of

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