LexSREE RAGHUTHILAKATHIRTHA SREEPADANGALAVARU SWAMIJI versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Nldu'ftllri
Kttmaroorammt
Y.
s.,,,,,1111 S•bl>a Ru
Hid..,.,.i/d J.
Ifft
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
service inam Wal! correct in tho circumstances of the
caBe, and the High Court was not justified in revel'll-
ing it.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment
of the High Court set a.side, and that of the lower
Court restored, with costs throughout.
A ppw.l allowe.d.
SREE RAGHUTHILAKATHIRTHA
SREEPADANGALAVARU SWAMIJI
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAB, K. N.
WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
T. L VENKA.TARA...'llA AIYAR, JJ.)
Landlord and Tenant-Rem-Enactment providing for
jixaticm of ma:r:imum rent - COMtitulional validity-Notijicalion
ai:r:ing atandard rent-Validity-Bombay Tenanc.~ and ,,ipncult-
ural Landa Act, 1918 ( Bom. 67 of 1948), a. 6-M ysore TeMn·
cy Act,.1952 (Myaore 13 of 1952), as. 6(1112), 12-CO'Mlitutimi
of India, Art. U,19(1) (fl, 26,31,31A.
The Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was enacted, inter alia,
for the purpose of regulating the law which governed the
relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands. Sub-
section (I) of s. 6 of the Act provided: "Notwithstanding
any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court or any law,
the maximum rent payable in respect of any period ...... by
a tenant for the lease of any land shall not exceed one-half
of the crop or crops raised on such land or its value
as determined in the prescribed manner". "The Government
may, by notification in the Mysore Gazette, fix a lower rate
of the maximum rent payable by the tenantS of lands situate
in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other
suitable basis as they think fit".
In exercise of the Power.
...,
conferred by s.6(2), the Government of Mysore issued a •
notification purporting to fix the standard rent for
land
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT l'tEp(IRTS
227
specified in Sch. I which dealt with Maidan areas i. e., lands
on· the plains at one third of the produce, and. for those
specified in Sch.II which .dealt with Malnad areas 1, e., lands
on hilly tracts at one fou· ;h.
.
The appellant who owned garden land in the district of
Shimoga in Mysore State and who had 'leased out the land to
a tenant, challenged the validity or s.6(2) of the Act as well as
the notification on the grounds that they contravened Arts. 14,
19'1) (f), 26, 31 and 31A of the Constitution of India, and
that, in any case, the notification was inconsistent with s. 6( t)
inasmuch as it was based on s. 6(2) which bein<t an exception
to s. 6( I) could not be allowed to swallow up the general rule
and tliat was precisely what the notification purported to do.
The Mysore Tenancy Act was modelled on the pattern of the
Bombay Tcnancv and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the
provisions of s.6 of the Mysore Act were •imilar to s.6 of the
Bombay Act.
In Vaaantlal
Maganbhni San,ianwala
v.
The State
of
Bomba.,, (1961]
I. S. C. R. 341 ; it
was
held that s. 6 of the
Bombay Act wa•
vaild.
The
appellant contended that the aforesaid decision was
not
applicable bccaust'! there were rlifferencec; • bt'!tween the twO
Acts inasmuch as ( l) in the preamble to the Bombay Act it
was stated that it was passed inter alia for the purpose of
improving the economic and socia1 conditions of peasants and
this was not mentioned in the Mysore Act, (2\
unlike
the
Mysore Act,
the Bombay Act, made a distinCtion
between the irrigated and non·irrigated land {3) the Bombay
Act while prescribini: a maximum took
the precaution
of also prescribing a minimum and the absence of the latter
provision in the Mysore Act made a material difference.
Held, that: (I) the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was
substantially similar to Bombay Tenancv and
Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948, and that the question as to be whether
s. 6 (2) of the Mvsore Act was valid must be held ti> be covered
by the decision the Vasanllal Ma.ganbhai Sanjanwala v. The
Stat. of Bo..,.bay [1961] I S. C.R. 341. Accordingly, s.6(2) of
the Mysore Ter.ancy Act, 1952, was valid.
·
(2) on its true construction, s. 6(1) of the Mysore
Tenancy Act, 19~2. wa• intended to apply to all agricultural
leases until a notification was issued under 9'6(2\ in respect
of the areas where the lea••d lands might be situated ; s 6(2)
~ could not, therefore, be considered as an exception to s.6(1).
Consequently, the notification in question was valid.
Ba,hulhilakathirlhG
Paclat galavaru
SwamExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.