Ananga Bijoy Mittra Vs. Tata Iron
& Steel Co. Ltd.  INSC 307 (9 November 1962)
Land Tenure-Application for lease-Lease
granted-- Ascertainment of the purpose of lease-Terms of application for lease
to be looked into-Agricultural tenant-Definition of Monthly tenancy-Undertaking
to abide by house building rules- Not a Raiyat-Liable to eviction-Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. 6 of 1908), ss. 4(2), 6.
The predecessor in interest of the present
appellant applied to the land officer of the respondents for the settlement of
the subject matter of dispute, situated in, Jamshedpur. The land was let out to
him as tenant from month to month at a rent of Re. 1 /- per month. There was no
document creating the lease. The application for settlement contained averments
to the effect that the applicant wanted it 1 for garden purposes" that he
agreed to hold the land "on monthly tenancy" and that would abide by
the "house building rules".
Following a notice to quit the respondents
who are the owners of the plot filed a-suit for eviction of the appellant and
for arrears of rent. The defence raised was that there was no monthly tenancy
and the lease was for agricultural and horticultural purposes and the appellant
was an agricultural tenant within the meaning of ss. 4 and 6 of the Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act who has fixity of tenure.
_The trial court upheld the contention and on
appeal it was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. On second appeal the High
Court of Patna held that the lease was not for agri- cultural purposes and
ordered eviction. The present appeal is by way of special leave granted by this
The main contention before this Court was
that since the application for Jew made it clear that the land was for
"garden 2 purpose" the appellant was raiyat within the meaning of s.
6 of the Act.
Held, that the statement of the purpose had
to considered alongwith the other facts mentioned in the document, viz.
that the application was for a monthly
tenancy, and that the applicant agreed to abide by the house building rules. On
such consideration, it was clear that the lease was not for horticultural or
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 286 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated March 26, 1958, of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal No. 1330
N.C. Chatterjee and R. C. Prasad, for the
S. N. Andley and S. P. Varma, for the
respondent No. 1.
1962. November 9. The judgment of the Court
was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-The subject-matter of this litigation is a plot
of land measuring 1267 sq. ft. in the Sakchi New Planning area in the town of
Jamshedpur. On June 23,1937, Abdul Gani, through whom the present appellant
claims to be interested in the land, applied for settlement of this plot of
land to the Land Officer of the owner of the land, the Tata Iron and Steel
Company Ltd. The application was allowed and the land was let out to Abdul Gani
as a tenant from month to month at a rent of Re. 1/per month. The suit out of
which this appeal has arisen was brought in 1949 for ejectment of the tenant
after determination of the tenancy by a notice to quit the premises. There was
also, a prayer for arrears of rent at Re 1/- per month.
The defence of Abdul Gani was that he was an
agriculturist tenant as contemplated under the 3 Ghotanagpur Tenancy Act and
not a monthly tenant and that no monthly rent was paid for the land It 'was,
also pleaded that the lease being for agricultural and horticultural purposes
at an annual rent, the defendant acquired a valid occupancy right and was not
liable to ejectment. The present appellant was added as a defendant by an order
dated May 25, 1953. He also filed a written statement contending that by
operation of the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, Abdul Gani had acquired
occupancy right, that the purpose for which settlement was made with Abdul Gani
could not create a monthly tenancy and the plaintiff was not entitled to Khas
The Trial Court (The Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur),
accepted the defence plea that the tenancy created in favour of Abdul Gani was
agricultural, that Abdul Gani had acquired an occupancy raiyat's right therein
and as the tenancy Act was governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act the suit was
not triable by a civil court. Accordingly, he dismissed the suit.
On appeal the Subordinate Judge, Singhbhum,
with the findings of the Trial Court that the holding was agricultural and
therefore governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and accordingly affirmed the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The High Court of judicature at Patna however
came to the conclusion in Second Appeal that the lease was not for agricultural
and horticultural purposes and there was no question. of the defendant having
acquired the right of occupancy in the land. The High Court allowed the appeal,
set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and decreed the
Against this decision of the High Court this
appeal has been filed by special leave granted by this Court.
4 In support of the appeal it is urged before
us by Mr. N. Chatterjee, that the High Court erred in holding that the lease
was not for agricultural or horticultural purposes.
He points out that the application for lease
of the land mentions ""garden purpose" as the purpose of the
tenancy, and argues that that is sufficient to make Abdul Gani a raiyat within
the meaning of s. 6 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Section 4 of the Act states
that for the purpose of this Act there shall be four classes of tenants,
namely, (1) tenure-holders,(2) raiyats, (3) under-raiyats and(4)Munderi
Khunt-kattidars. Admittedly' and obviously, Abdul Gani was not a tenant under
classes 1, 3 and 4 and the only way he could come within the ambit of
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was by being a "raiyat" as mentioned in class
(2). "Raiyat" is defined in s. 6 of this Act to mean "primarily
a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating
it by himself or by 'members of his family or by hired servants.- or with the
aid of partners ; and includes the successors-in-interest of persons who have
acquired such a right It has been settled by a number of decisions of the
Calcutta and the Patna High Courts that the purpose of planting an orchard
comes within "'the purpose of cultivation." If it appears that Abdul
Gani took lease of the land in dispute for the purpose of growing an orchard he
clearly became a raiyat' under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
While there is no document creating the lease
we have, in the present case, Abdul Gani's application for lease and the
landlord's order granting the lease. The application is in these words:-
"I beg to apply for a plot of land measuring 1267 sq It. in Sakchi New
Planning for Garden Purpose and for permission to retain one step in the east
I agree to hold the land on monthly tenancy
and to abide by the terms and conditions of the 5 Company and the house
building rules. I also agree to abide by the rules and bye-laws of the
Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee in force from time to time.
I agree to pay the security deposit to be
fixed by you in respect of my tenancy as soon as the plot IS allotted to me and
shall submit the plan of MY proposed house for approval of the Chief Town
Engineer before I start construction.
I therefore request that you will kindly
allot me a plot of land in the above mentioned Basti on your usual terms."
Mr. Chatterjee fastens on the words "for garden purpose" and argues
that that shows clearly that the purpose was to grow an orchard. It will not be
proper however to look only at this one phrase "for garden purpose"
and to ignore the rest of the document. It has to be noticed that after stating
in the first sentence that he wanted the land "for garden purpose"
Abdul Gani stated in the next paragraph that he agreed to hold the land
"on monthly tenancy" and again that he agreed "to abide by the
terms and conditions of the Company and the house building. rules." It is
difficult to conceive of a lease for cultivation being taken on a monthly tenancy.
It is even more difficult to understand why Abdul Gani would agree "to
abide by the house building rules" if I the purpose was only to grow an
orchard. These two facts, namely, that the land would be held on monthly
tenancy and the tenant would abide by the house-building rules, have to be
considered along with the earlier statement that the land was being applied
"'for garden purpose." The terms of the application for lease are, in
our opinion, sufficient to show that the lease was not for an agricultural or
horticultural purpose. In view of this, it is unnecessary to investigate how
the land was actually used. It may be mentioned however that if one did examine
the evidence to 6 find out such user, it becomes clear that while a part of the
land was used for growing some guava, trees and some flowers, a pacca room was
also erected: on a portion of the land. On a consideration of all these things
we find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the purpose of the
lease was not agricultural or horticultural.
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion
that the High Court was right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed with costs.