SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Saghir Ahmad and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5347 of 1990. D/d. 7.12.1999

Gulab - Petitioner

Versus

Kashinath (D) - Respondent

Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Section 98 - Protected Tenant - No documentary or oral evidence available to show that landlady had inducted the respondents on lands - Not was there any material forthcoming to how that he could have been inducted by mortgagees - Even the pleadings of respondent himself were not that he had been induced by the mortgagee - Held, High Court wrongly considered that mortgagee in possession had inducted the Respondent as a tenant and such tenant is protected - Order made by High Court set aside and order of Tribunal restored - Appeal allowed.

[Para 2]

ORDER

1. Application for bringing L.Rs. of the sole respondent on record is allowed.

2. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court in writ petition which in turn arose out of certain proceedings initiated under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act to secure possession of certain lands by evicting the appellant before us from the suit land. Application under Section 98 of the said Act had been made by the respondent to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector dismissed the said application and held that the possession of the appellant was not unauthorised and, therefore, proceedings under Section 98 could not be taken. Thereafter an appeal was carried by the respondent to the Tribunal which was dismissed stating that there was no material available in the proceedings to show that he was a protected tenant. The respondent further carried the matter to the High Court by way of writ petition. The High Court proceeded to notice as follows:

"The petitioner claims to be tenant of the original landlady Sunderabai. There is no documentary or oral evidence produced by the petitioner to show that he was inducted on the lands by Sunderabai. But, from the entries, it is clear that the petitioner is shown to be a tenant of the mortgagee, as the land was mortgaged by Sunderabai to Bhanudas and Jagannath and the petitioner has never claimed to be the tenant of the mortgagees. It is pertinent to note that the date of mortgage is not mentioned, but from the proceedings for redemption of mortgage initiated by Sunderabai, it is clear that the land was mortgaged by her to some persons and redemption proceedings were initiated thereafter and the petitioner was dispossessed sometime in .1957. Even assuming that the tenant has not specifically pleaded as to who inducted him as a tenant over the suit land, but from the entries for the year 1950-51 and thereafter, it is clear that the petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant, may be through the mortgagees. The mortgagee in possession inducting tenant, such tenant is protected and such tenant is entitled for protection of the tenancy law, namely, the Hyderabad Tenancy Act....

Finding is clearly recorded by the High Court that there is no documentary or oral evidence available to show that the landlady had inducted the respondent on the lands. Nor was there any material forthcoming to show that he could have been inducted by the mortgagees but, however, the High Court proceeded to consider the entries for the year 1950-51 onwards and took the view that the respondent was cultivating the land as a tenant and may be under the mortgagees. Thus, the High Court proceeded to consider that the mortgagee in possession had inducted the Respondent as a tenant and such a tenant is protected. There is absolutely no material in this regard for the High Court to have proceeded in this manner at all. Even the pleadings of the respondent himself were not that he had been inducted by the mortgagee and the High Court had no basis to think so. We do not find any good reason for the High Court to have upset the order made by the Tribunal and affirming the order of the Deputy Collector We, therefore, set aside the order made by the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

.