Shaikh Sujat And Anr. vs S.K. Mahaboob
- SCC(1999) 4 SCC 498
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 2257
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a person claims tenancy in agricultural land under a lease deed, but the fact-finding authority determines that the lease deed was not acted upon and that the person was cultivating the land in their capacity as a family member while residing as part of a joint family with the landowner, the claim to tenancy must fail, and the person cannot be recognized as a lawful tenant merely by reason of being a family member.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The Appellant No. 1, nephew of one Shaikh Gulab, claimed to be his tenant in the proceedings initiated in the Civil Court by the respondent who was purchased the property from Shaikh Gulab. As the plea of tenancy was raised, a reference was made to the Tehsildar for deciding whether appellant No. 1 is a tenant of the suit land or not. The Tehsildar held that he has been cultivating the land under the lease dated 1.1.68 and, therefore, he is a lawful tenant on the land. This order of the Tehsildar was reversed by the Deputy Collector in appeal as he came to the conclusion that the said lease deed was not acted upon, that appellant No. 1 was staying with Shaikh Gulab and that he was cultivating the land as a family member and not as a tenant. This finding was confirmed by the Tribunal in Revision Application. The High Court agreeing with that finding dismissed the writ petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that merely because appellant No. 1 was a family member, it cannot be said that she was not cultivating the land lawfully as a tenant. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Daya lal and Ors. v. Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim - . In our opinion the said decision is of no help to the appellant because in this case it has been found by the final fact finding authority that Shaikh Gulab and the appellants were staying together as a joint family and that the lease deed dated 1.1.68 was not acted upon. These findings of fact are based upon the oral evidence and the Will made in the year 1989 by Shaikh Gulab. Appellant No. 1 is claiming tenancy under the lease and not on any other basis. Once the lease deed is found not to have been acted upon and it is held that he is cultivating the lands in his capacity as a family member his claim that he is the tenant of the land must fail. In view of these facts, it is not necessary to refer to the question of law raised in this appeal.
3. This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free