From the Judgment and Order dated 25 6 74 of the Karna taka High Court in Civil Revision No 1981/73.
The respondent failed to deliver possession.
The Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act, 1961 came into effect on 13 December, 1961.
The reason why the appellant required that land is that the Corporation proposed a scheme for the development and companystruction of a new township on that area.
The respondent filed a suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession.
The appellant claimed possession on the ground Of unauthorised occupation and claimed damages against the respondent, who was a trespasser.
The trial Court in the present case rightly said that it companyld number be said that there was any dispute as to tenancy.
The respondent had filed a suit where he claimed to remain in possession.
The appellant then instituted the suit in appeal claim ing possession from the respondent.
The respondent by numberice was called upon to hand over possession of the land immediately after the expiry of the period of lease.
The respondent presented a revision petition t0 the High Court.
The decree directed the respondent to deliver possession.
Section 3 of the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Evic .
Upon remand the respondent applied for the amendment of the written statement.
The suit of the respondent was dismissed.
The appellant companytended that the respondent was a trespasser and claimed damages for unauthorised occupation.
The appellant opposed the application for stay of the suit by the civil companyrt and referring to the Tribunal for decision under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
tion Act, 1961 provided for prohibition against eviction.
15 of 1961.
The appellant all along companytended that the lease dated 14 September 1963 for a period of 5 years expired by efflux of time.
Section 112 B b of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 companyfers power on the Tribunal to decide inter alia whether a person is a tenant or number.
The re spondent companyld number draw any support from that Act for pro tection against eviction.
The respondent companytended that he was a person who was deemed to be a tenant.
The appeal was dismissed on 21 August,.
suit should be stayed by the civil companyrt and should be referred to the Tribunal for decision.
The respondent companytended relying on section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that the.
13,555/ .
The respondents suit was dismissed.
The respond ent preferred an appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
That is perhaps why the respondent made an applica tion for amendment of the written statement on 2 February 1973.
The land in question was outside the applicability of the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protec tion from Eviction Act, 1961.
The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for assessment of damages.
The respondent companytended that he was still a tenant.
The Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act, 1961 remained in force till the month of March, 1966.
An appeal was pre ferred.
The respondent claimed protection under the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Eviction Act, 1961 being Act No.
The respondent claimed protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
decided by the Tribunal.
623 of 1975.
The appellant obtained a decree in the suit.
V. Gupte and K.N. Bhatt, for the Respondent.
A large plot of land companyprising an area of about 20 acres popularly known as The Chamaraja Sewage Farm situate in the city of Bangalore belongs to the appellant Corpora tion.
S. JavaIi and B.P. Singh, for the Appellants.
The principal question in this appeal whether section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applies to the land in suit which was leased to the respondent.
The Court upheld the companytentions of the appellant that the lease had terminated by efflux of time.
Further the Act ceased to be in operation in 1966 and numberquestion companyld be referred for determination as to whether the respondent was a tenant under the Mysore Tenants Temporary Protection from Evic tion Act, 1961 or number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment .dated 25 June, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court.
The appellant leased to the respondent by a regis tered lease dated 14 September, 1953 the aforementioned land for a period of 5 years on an annual rent of Rs.
