RAMESH BEJOY SHARMA AND ORS. versus PASHUPATI RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 17-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

6 
A 
RAMESH BE.TOY SHARMA AND ORS. 
v. 
PASHUPATI RAI AND ORS. 
July 17, 1979 
B 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950-S. 6(1)-Scope of-Klias possession-
Meaning of-Possession and kha.J possession-Di.Jtinction. 
Respondents tenants at will in possession of land-Lo.ndlord-lntermediary,. 
if could be said to be in khas possession of the land and entitled to evict the· 
C 
tenant-at-will without notice-Rights of tenant-at-will and landlord-Discussed. 
D 
E 
F 
Contention available to one of the parties not pressed before the High 
Co'urt-lf could be agitated before Supreme Court. 
In a suit filed against the respondents (defendants), fur recovery. of posses-
sion of the suit lands, the appellants (plaintiffs) alleged that the suit lands were 
the proprietor's private. lands and w'ere in their actual cultivating possession 
from time immemorial. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. 
Eventually, the 
High c·ourt held tha.t the defendants or their ancestors had not acquired any 
ryoti interest with right of occupancy; nor Were th,ty tenure-holders but were 
mere tenants-at-will; a1,,1d that the suit was not maintainable because even a 
tenant-at-will could not be ejected without being given. notice to quit. There-
upon the appellants gave notice to the defendants. In the n1eantime, by virtue 
of a notification issu'ed under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 19-50, the 
estate had vested in the State by reason of which the plaintiff was not entitled 
to evict the defendants, 
On the question whether the plaintiff had a right to fi.l'e a suit for possel'!Sion 
after the vesting of the estate in the Stare, the trial court held that since the 
plaintiff had a right to take possessioo, the land could be deemed to be in bis 
klta! poss·ession a.nd, therefore, he would be entitled to evict the defendants-
notwithstanding the vesting of the estate in the State. 
In appeal the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that 
the right to take possession did not constitute khas possession within the mean-
ing of s. 6 (!) (b) of the Act. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
khas possession within the meaning of s. 6 comprehends the right to take 
G 
possession and so the appellant was entitled to evict the respondents. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (a) A combined reading of the definition of kfta.r possession under 
s. 2(k) and ss. 3, 4 and 6 of the Act shows that the land in possession of a 
tenant-at-will cannot be Soaid to be in khas possession of the intermediary for 
the purpose of s. 6. [19D] 
(b) A tenant-at-will is not holding possession on behalf of the landlord but 
he bas a. Vestige of title to it and holds on his own behalf and can set up his 
po6session against the landlord till the formality prescribed by law is. undertaken 
R. B. SHARMA v. PASHUPATI RA! 
7 
by the landlord and he is evicted 
by due process of law. If a notice of a 
certain duration is necessary expiring with a c'ertain event such a6 the end of 
the agricultural year, till the end of the agricultural year the tenant, notwith-
standing the fact that be is a tenant-;;i.t-will and under a notice to quit will be 
able to hold on to his possession and keep the landlord at bay. [17H] 
In the instant case, in the suit between the same parties to the present liti-
gations, the High Court held that the defendants were tenants-at-Vvill of agri-
. cultural land, that they \\'ere holding from year to year and that they could be 
evicted not only after termination of their tenancy by a notic'e to 'quit but such 
.ootlce must expire with the agricultural year. 
The notice to be issued to the 
tenant-at-will has to be a notice terminating the tenancy whk:h must expire 
with the end or the agricultural year. In Bihar the agricultural year expires in 
September. Therefore, once it is concluded inter-partes that even a tenant-at-
will of an agricultural land is entitled to notice in consonance with justice and 
reason the tenant-at-will cannot be thfO\Vn out at any period during, the. year 
but the notice must expire with the end of the a.gricultural year. 
Sudhir Kunzar Majumdar & Ors. v. Dhircndra Nath Biswas & Anr., A.LR, 
1957 Cal. 625, not approved. 
( c) A tenanat-at-will is someone other than the landlord. 
\Vhen he culti-
vates land used for agriculture, the agricultural operations cannot be said to be 
cultivation of the landlord himself. 
When a tenant-at-will carries on ag

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