{"id":44431,"date":"1991-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991"},"modified":"2018-02-23T23:05:01","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T17:35:01","slug":"lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","title":{"rendered":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2072, \t\t 1991 SCR (3) 672<\/div>\n
Author: R Sahai<\/div>\n
Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLALA  RAGHURAJ\tSWARUP (DEAD) BY L.RS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARDWARI LAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/08\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 2072\t\t  1991 SCR  (3) 672\n 1991 SCC  (4) 391\t  JT 1991 (3)\t486\n 1991 SCALE  (2)387\n\n\nACT:\n    United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939: Ss. 3(22), 3(23),  3\n1, 39, 45, 47, 48, 175, 180\/Notification dated 23. 1. 1953.\n    Non-occupancy tenants--Grant of sub-lease to sub-tenant-\nSurrender  of holding to land holder before expiry  of\tsub-\nlease--Notice\t of    ejectment   by\tland\tholder\t  to\nsub-tenant--Interest  of sub-tenant-Whether extinguishes  on\nextinction of tenants' interest--Status of subtenant--Wheth-\ner  he holds land otherwise than under law--Suit for  eject-\nment of sub-tenant after expiry of sub-lease--Maintainabili-\nty.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t defendant-appellant was a sub-tenant in terms of  a\nsub-lease granted to him by the non-occupancy tenants for  a\nperiod of five years from 1.1.1950 expiring on 31.12.1954 in\nrespect\t of the land in dispute of which  the  plaintiff-re-\nspondent  was  the  proprietor. On  14.9.1954  the  original\ntenants\t surrendered their interests in the holding  to\t the\nproprietor who .issued a notice dated 2.11.1954 to the\tsub-\ntenant\t demanding   vacant  possession\t of  the   land\t  by\n31.12.1954, the agreed date of expiry of the sub-lease, and,\nsince  the  latter  failed to comply with  the\tnotice,\t the\npropriter  filed a suit fro, ejectment under s. 180  of\t the\nnited Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939.\n    The\t Trial\tCourt as well as the first  appellate  court\ndecided\t all  the  issues in favour of\tthe  plaintiff,\t but\ndismissed  the\tsuit as not maintainable  holding  that\t the\ndefendant  being a sub-tenant was liable to be ejected\tonly\nin terms of s. 175 and not under s. 180 of the Act, and\t had\nthe suit been brought under s. 175 it would have been stayed\nin terms of the Government Notification dated 23.1.1953.\n    In\tthe  second appeal by the plaintiff the\t High  Court\nheld  that  the suit was rightly brought under s.  I80\tand,\nfinding\t the  other issues in favour of\t the  plaintiff,  it\ndecreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the  appeal\nby special leave to this Court.\n    It\twas contended on behalf of  the\t defendant-appellant\nthat  his interest in the land was not extinguished  on\t the\nextinction of the\n673\ntenants'  interest but continued even after  termination  of\nthe period of his sub-lease notwithstanding the\t plaintiffs'\nnotice; that although the term of lease had expired, he\t was\nnot  in unlawful or unauthorised occupation but was in\tpos-\nsession\t of the land by reason of his being a  lessee,\tand,\ntherefore,  S. 175of the United Provinces Tenancy  Act,\t was\napplicable;  and that he ceased to be a sub-tenant  and\t was\nelevated  to the position of a tenant on the  extinction  of\nthe  interests\tof  the tenants on their  surrender  of\t the\nholding.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD: (By the Court--Dr. T.K. Thommen & R.M. Sahai, JJ.)\n(1) The interest of a non-occupancy sub-tenant, is liable to\nbe  extinguished consequent on the extinction of the  inter-\nests of the nonoccupancy tenant, and he enjoys a legal right\nfor a limited period in terms of the statute.\n    (2)\t A person who continues to remain in  occupation  of\nthe  land even after the expiry of the period of his  lease,\nand despite the landlords' notice to quit the permises,\t can\nno  longer be regarded as a tenant as referred to in  clause\n(a) or clause (b) of s. 175 of the United Provinces  Tenancy\nAct, 1939.\n    (3)\t The persons who axe not, or are no longer,  tenants\nat the time of the suit, and liable to ejectment, have to be\nproceeded  against  under  s. 180 of  the  United  Provinces\nTenancy Act, 1939.\nPer Dr. Thommen, J.\n    1.1 The extinguishment of the interest of a non-occupan-\ncy  tenant  would, as envisaged by s. 47(1)  of\t the  United\nProvinces Tenancy Act, 1939, extinguish the interest of\t his\nsub-tenant  except as otherwise proVided in sub-ss. (3)\t and\n(4). [685A-B]\n    1.2\t Notwithstanding the extinction of the\tinterest  of\nthe  the  by  reason of his surrender or  any  other  reason\nmentioned under subsection (4) of s. 47, a sub-tenant  whose\nsub-tenancy had not expired, was protected for the remainder\nof  the\t term  of the sub-lease or for\t5  years,  whichever\nperiod\tbe  the shorter, but subject to the  requirement  of\nsub-section (5) about rent. [681G-H]\n    2.1\t In the instant case, the interests of\tthe  tenants\nhad  become extinguished in terms of clause (c) of s. 45  of\nthe United Provinces\n674\nTenancy Act by reason of surrender of their interests in the\nholding\t on 14.9.54 in favour of  the  proprietor-plaintiff.\n[679G-H]\n    Once the interest of the person under whom the defendant\nheld the land was extinguished, the defendant was no  longer\na  sub-tenant,\tbut a person enjoying a legal  right  for  a\nlimited period in terms of the statute. [685B]\n    Birendra  Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Gulwant Singh  &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1968] 2 SCR 870, referred to.\n    Biswabani (P) Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta & Ors.,<\/a> [1980]\n1 SCR 650, held inapplicable.\n    The\t interest  of the defendant, being that\t of  a\tnan-\noccupancy subtenant, was, subject to the provisions of\tsub-\nss.(4)and (5) of s. 47, liable to be extinguished consequent\non  the\t extinction of the  interests of  the  non-occupancy\ntenants. [681 B-C]\n    2.2 The statutory right vested in the defendant remained\nin  force only for the statutority limited period,  for\t the\npurpose\t of removal of standing crops and other products  of\nthe  earth, and he had an obligation to vacate the  holding,\nas envisaged by s. 48. [681H; 682A]\n    2.3\t The terms and conditions under which the  defendant\nheld the sub-lease under the tenants continued to be binding\nand enforceable between the plaintiff and the defendant\t for\nthe  period from 14.9.1954, which was the date of  surrender\nby the tenants, till 31.12.1954, which was the date on which\nthe  defendant's sub-lease expired. This was, however,\tsub-\nject to sub-s. (5) of s. 47 which provided that, if the rent\npayable\t by the sub-tenant was less than the rent  that\t was\npayable\t by  the tenant, the sub-tenant had  the  option  of\nvacating  the  holding or continuing in possession  for\t the\nperiod\tpermitted by the statute on payment of rent  at\t the\nhigher rate which was applicable to the tenant. [681E-F]\n    3.1\t Section  175 of the United Provinces  Tenancy\tAct,\ndealing with a non-occupancy tenant, is confined to a person\nwho is a tenant either in terms of an unexpired lease or  by\nreason of his being allowed to continue in possession, after\nthe  expiry of the period of the lease. The section  has  no\napplication  to\t past tenants whose  interests\thave  become\nextinguished  for  the reasons stated in s. 45 or s.  47  or\nwhose lease has been duly determined. [682F-G; 683E]\n 675\t       675\n    3.2 There must be an existing or continuing legal  rela-\ntionship  between the owner and the person in possession  of\nthe  land. In the absence of any such  relationship,  either\nbecause\t no  lease or any other interest or right  was\tever\ngranted or because it was duly determined or extinguished, a\nperson retaining possession of the land without the  consent\nand  contrary  to  the will of the landlord  does  not\tcome\nwithin the purview ors. 175. [684A-B]\n    3.3 Persons who are not, or, who are no longer,  tenants\nat  the\t time of suit, and liable to ejectment, have  to  be\nproceeded against under s. 180. [682G-H]\n    3.4 S. 180 has no application to a present tenant. It is\nmeant for ejectment of a person who has no present right  to\nretain\tpossession  of land either  because  his  occupation\ncommenced  without any such right or the right by  which  he\ncommenced the occupation has since been duly extinguished or\nterminated  in\taccordance  with the law  in  force.  [683B;\n684B-C]\n    Bhinka  & Ors. v. Charan Singh,<\/a> [1959] Supp. 2 SCR\t798,\nreferred to.\n    4. The learned Judges of the High Court were correct  in\nholding that insofar as the defendant continued to remain in\noccupation  of the land even after the expiry of the  period\nof his lease, and despite the landlord's notice to quit\t the\npremises,  he  could no longer be regarded as a\t tenant\t re-\nferred\tto  in clause (a) or (b) of s. 175  and,  therefore,\nthat section had no application to him. The right section in\nterms of which a suit had to be brought against him, as\t the\nplaintiff did in the instant case, was section 180. [686G-H;\n687A]\nPer Sahai. J.:\n     1.1 Sub-tenant, literally or statutorily either in\t the\nRent Control legislations or agricultural tenancies, normal-\nly  is a person in possession holding from the\ttenant.\t His\nright  or  interest depends on provisions  in  the  statute.\n[687C]\n     1.2  Under\t U.P. Tenancy Act, sub-tenant  according  to\nclause\t(22)  of  s. 3 holds land from a  tenant,  and\teven\nthough he is included in the definition of tenant in  clause\n(23)  and  is non-occupancy tenant under s. 31 of  the\tAct,\nyet,  he is inferior class of tenant as he  is\tspecifically\nprecluded  by s. 39 from subletting and has no\tsecurity  of\ntenure as he can be evicted under s. 175 of the Act and\t his\ninterest in the holding\n676\nextinguishes,  statutorily,  under s. 47  on  extinction  of\ninterest of his tenant under s. 45 of the Act. [687C-D]\n    2.1 A combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (4) of s.\n47  shows that the interest of a sub-tenant extinguishes  on\nsurrender by his tenant but this is deferred for the  period\nmentioned in sub-section (4). The extinction is complete but\nits operation is postponed to a later date. The right creat-\ned  by sub-section (4) being limited in operation it  cannot\nextend beyond the period mentioned in it. [689G-H; 690A-B]\n    2.2 Section 47 is wider in application and immediate  in\noperation. It extends to every tenant holding under a tenant\nother than permanent tenure holder or fixed rate tenant. The\ninterest  of  such tenant  extinguishes,  automatically\t and\nimmediately by operation of law on extinction of interest of\nhis chief tenant. No further requirement is contemplated. He\nbecomes\t liable to ejectment. If he continues in  possession\nhe  is\ta  trespasser unless he holds with  consent  of\t the\nlandholder\/landlord  expressly or impliedly, and, as  envis-\naged by s. 48, he is required to vacate the holding  .except\nfor the standing crops and produce which he is permitted  to\nremove\tas any other tenant ejected in accordance  with\t the\nprovisions of the Act. [689A-C]'\nSection 47(4) does not arrest extinction. It only  postpones\nit. [690C-D]\n    Birendra Pratap v. Gulwant Singh and Others, AIR<\/a> 1968 SC\n1068 referred to.\n    2.3 The expression, 'Except as provided' in\t sub-section\n(1)  of s. 47 does not carve out an exception to  extinction\nof  interest  of Subtenant but to its  immediate  operation.\nThat  is interest in the holding is extinguished but form  a\nfuture\tdate namely expiry of the period of leases  or\tfive\nyears  whichever  is  shorter. This  benefit  or  concession\ncannot\tbe stretched to vest any fresh tenancy right in\t him\nafter expiry of the period. [689F-G]\n    2.4\t No new tenancy is created by sub-s. (4) of  s.\t 47.\nWhat  is  made binding and enforceable is the  old  covenant\nexisting between the tenant and sub-tenant for the remainder\nperiod\tof  the sub-lease. Whatever right a  sub-tenant\t ac-\nquires\tit ceases to operate after the expiry of  period  of\nlease or the period mentioned in the sub-section. No  second\nextinction is visualised. [690E-F]\n3.1  Status  of a person in possession after expiry  of\t the\nremainder\n677\nperiod\tof lease or five years as provided in s.  47(4)\t can\nneither be of statutory tenant nor a tenant holding over  as\nunderstood in common parlance. He is a person in  possession\nwithout authority of law. [690G]\n    3.2\t A  sub-tenant whose extinction is  postponed  as  a\nmatter\tof  concession because of the  tenant's\t prejudicial\nacts cannot be placed any higher than other sub-tenants\t who\nare  required to vacate their holding immediately  under  s.\n48. Therefore, retention of possession by such person cannot\nhe  except otherwise than in accordance with the  provisions\nof the Act for the time being in force. [690G-H; 691A]\n    4. The full Bench of the High Court was right in holding\nthat the effect of extinction of sub-tenant's interest under\ns. 47(1) of the Act was not only that 'he could no longer be\nheld  to he in the capacity of subtenant' but even the\t'new\nright'\tof  continuance for the remainder  period  of  lease\nwhich  was  created under s. 47(4) was limited and  did\t not\nvest  any right in such person to continue after  that\tdate\nnor  any fresh right of sub-tenancy could be deemed  to\t ac-\ncrue;  consequently, possession of such person after  expiry\nof  the\t extended period, was otherwise than  in  accordance\nwith the provision of law against whom a suit for  ejectment\nunder s. 180 of the Act was maintainable. [691A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  937  of
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment dated 24.3.1977 of the Allahabad\tHigh
\nCourt in Second Appeal No. 2746 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
    Shanti  Bhushan, J.P. Goyal, Satish Chandra,  V.M.\tTar-
\nkunde.\tR.P. Singh, A.K. Shukla, J.M. Khanna,  M.R.  Bidsar,
\nK.K.  Gupta.  Vijay Kumar Verma, Ms.  Shefali  Khanna,\tP.K.
\nChakraborty and R.C. Verma for the appearing parties.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    THOMMEN,  J. This appeal by,leave arises from the  judg-
\nment.  Of  the\tFull Bench of the Allahabad  High  Court  in
\nSecond\tAppeal\tNo. 2746 of 1965, whereby  the\tHigh  Court,
\nreversing  the finding of the courts, below; held  that\t the
\nsuit  instituted by the present respondent was\tmaintainable
\nunder section 180 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act,\t1939
\n(the  ‘Act’).  That is the only question  which\t arises\t for
\nconsideration in this appeal brought by the defendant in the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
678<\/span><\/p>\n
    The suit relates to 10 plots of land of Which the plain-
\ntiff is the proprietor and situated in District\t Muzaffarna-
\ngar.   The  suit  was  instituted  for\tejectment   of\t the
\ndefendant-appellant  Lala Raghuraj Swarup .(now\t represented
\nby  his\t Legal Representatives and hereinafter\treferred  to
\nalso  as the ‘sub-tenant’), who was granted a  sub-lease  in
\nthe  suit  properties by the original  tenants,\t Raimal\t and
\nBhartu (the ‘tenants’) for a period of five years commencing
\nfrom  1.1.1950\tand  expiring on 31.12.\t 1954.\tHowever,  on
\n14.9.1954  the\ttenants surrendered their  interest  in\t the
\nholding\t to  the plaintiff. The plaintiff  thereupon  issued
\nnotice dated 2.11.1954 to the defendant calling upon him  to
\ndeliver\t vacant possession of the land to the  plaintiff  on
\n31.12.1954  which was the agreed date of expiry of the\tsub-
\nlease.\tSince the defendant failed to comply with  that\t de-
\nmand, the plaintiff instituted the suit for ejectment  under
\nsection 180 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Various  conntentions were, raised by the  defendant  in
\nanswer to the plaint allegations and all of them, except the
\nquestion whether the suit was maintainable under section 180
\nof  the Act, were rejected by the trial court as well as  by
\nthe  first appellate court. Holding that  the suit  was\t not
\nmaintainable, they stated that, in view of the fact that the
\ndefendant  was\tholding\t the land as a\tsub-tenant,  he\t was
\nliable\tto be ejected only in terms of section 175, and\t not
\nsection\t 180,  and had the suit been brought  under  section
\n175,  it would have been stayed in terms of  the  Government
\nNotification dated January 23, 1953 stating that all  suits,
\napplications or proceedings under section 175 were stayed.
\nIt  is\tnot disputed that had the suit\tbeen  brought  under
\nsection 175, it was liable to be stayed for the notification
\nis still in force and has remained in force at all  material
\ntimes.\tOn the other hand, if  the suit was rightly  brought
\nunder section 180, there was no stay and in that event,\t all
\nthe  other issues having been found in favour of the  plain-
\ntiff,  the suit has to be, and ought to have been,  decreed.
\nThe High Court has so held by the impugned judgment.
\n    To\texamine this question, we shall presently  refer  to
\nsections  175 and 180, but before we do so, it is  necessary
\nto  refer to the provisions concerning the status of a\tsub-
\ntenant (vis-a-vix a tenant) whose rights are extinguished by
\noperation of law.\n<\/p>\n
    The expression ‘tenant’ in sub-section (23) of section 3
\nof the Act includes a ‘sub-tenant’ as defined in sub-section
\n(22) of that section. These sub-sections read:\n<\/p>\n
679<\/span><\/p>\n
“3(22). ‘sub-tenant’ means a person who holds land from\t the
\ntenant thereof other than a permanent tenure-holder, or from
\na grove-holder or from a rent-free grantee or from a grantee
\nat a favourable rate of rent and by whom rent is, or but for
\na contract express or implied, would be payable;
\n3(23).\t‘tenant’ means the person by whom rent is,  or\t.but
\nfor  a\tcontract express or implied would be,  payable\tand,
\nexcept\twhen  the  contrary intention  appears,\t includes  a
\nsubtenant,  but does not include a mortgagee of\t proprietary
\nor  under-proprietary rights, a grove-holder,  a  ‘rent-free
\ngrantee,  a grantee at a favourable rate of rent or,  except
\nas  otherwise expressly provided by this Act, an  under-pro-
\nprietor, a permanent lessee or a thekadar;”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis not disputed that the defendant at  the  material
\ntime  was a ‘sub-tenant’ as defined under section  3(22)  in
\nterms of the sub-lease granted to him by Raimal and  Bhartu,
\nwho were ‘tenants’ within the meaning of section 3(23).\t Nor
\nis it disputed that the defendant and Raimal and Bhartu were
\nnon-occupancy  tenants\tas defined under  section  31  which
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “31. All tenants other than permanent tenure-
\n\t      holders,\tfixed-rate tenants, tenants  holding
\n\t      on  special  terms  in  Oudh,   ex-proprietary
\n\t      tenants,\toccupancy  tenants  and\t  hereditary
\n\t      tenants are non-occupancy tenants.”
\n\t\t  Sections  45 to 48 speak of extinction  of
\n\t      tenancies. Section 45, so far as it is materi-
\n\t      al to the facts of this case, provides:
\n\t      “45. The interest of a tenant shall be  extin-
\n\t      guished-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (c)\t ………….\tby surrender, or  by
\n\t      abandonment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tnot disputed that, in respect of  the  two  tenants,
\ntheir  interests had become extinguished in terms of  clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) by reason of surrender of their interests in the holding
\non 14.9.1954 in favour of the proprietor-\n<\/p>\n
680<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff.  The effect of such surrender on the interest  of
\nthe  sub-tenant\t is  dealt with in section 47.\tIt  is\twith
\nreference to this section that the applicability of  section
\n180 has to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tiS important to remember that the material  portions
\nof section 47, namely, sub-sections (1), (4) and (5) dealing
\nwith  the interests of sub-tenants on the extinction of\t the
\ntenants’  interests, are concerned only with  tenants  other
\nthan  permanent\t tenure holders or fixed  rate\ttenants.  In
\nother  words,  these sub-Sections  (unlike  sub-section\t (2)
\nconcerning a transferee from a permanent tenure holder or  a
\nfixed-rate tenant or sub-section (3) dealing with  mortgages
\nexecuted  prior\t to January, 1902) deal\t with  non-occupancy
\ntenants,  as  in the present case, and not  with  any  other
\nclass  of  tenants. Section 47, so far as  it  is  material,
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“47. (1) Except as otherwise provid-
\n\t      ed in sub-section (3) and sub-section (4)\t the
\n\t      extinction of the interest of a tenant,  other
\n\t      than.  a\tpermanent tenure-holder or  a  fixed
\n\t      rate tenant, shall operate .to extinguish\t the
\n\t      interest\t of   any   tenant   holding   under
\n\t      him  …….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (2)  Subject  to\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894,
\n\t      the extinction of the interest of a  permanent
\n\t      tenure-holder or a fixed rate tenant shall not
\n\t      of itself affect the rights of any  transferee
\n\t      from  such tenant under a valid transfer,\t but
\n\t      after  the transfer all covenants binding\t and
\n\t      enforceable as between the landholder and\t the
\n\t      tenant  shall  be binding and  enforceable  as
\n\t      between the landholder. and the transferee.
\n\t\t       (4) Where, at the time Of the extinc-
\n\t      tion by surrender or abandonment, or by  death
\n\t      without  any  heir entitled  to  inherit\tsuch
\n\t      interest,\t of the interest in a holding  of  a
\n\t      tenant other than a permanent tenUre-holder or
\n\t      fixed-rate  tenant,  there is in\texistence  a
\n\t      valid  sub-lease of the whole or of a  portion
\n\t      of the holding, executed on or after the first
\n\t      day  of January, 1902, all covenants,  binding
\n\t      and enforceable as between the tenant and\t the
\n\t      sub-tenant shall, subject to the provisions of
\n\t      sub-section (5), be binding and enforceable as
\n\t      between  the tenant’s landholder and the\tsub-
\n\t      tenant  for the remainder of the term  of\t the
\n\t      sub-lease or for five years, whichever  period
\n\t      may be the shorter..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     681<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       (5).  In\t the cases  referred  to  in
\n\t      sub-section  (3) and sub-section (4),  if\t the
\n\t      rent  payable by the sub-tenant is  less\tthan
\n\t      that hitherto payable by the tenant, the\tsub-
\n\t      tenant  shall have the option of vacating\t the
\n\t      holding, but shall, if he continues in posses-
\n\t      sion, be liable to pay rent at the rate  hith-
\n\t      erto payable by the tenant  ….\t”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Section 47(1) shows that in the case of all non-occupan-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
cy tenants, (as distinguished from permanent tenure  holders
\nor  fixed-rate tenants with whom we are not  concerned)\t the
\nextinction of their interests as such tenants will,  subject
\nto  the protection of sub-sections (3) and (4),\t operate  to
\nextinguish the interests of tenants holding under them.\t The
\ninterest  of  the defendant, being that of  a,\tnonoccupancy
\nsub-tenant, is thus liable to be extinguished consequent  on
\nthe extinction of the interests of the non-occupancy tenants
\nRaimal and Bhartu. This extinction of the defendant’s inter-
\nest is, however, subject to the provisions contained is\t the
\nrelevant sub-sections, which on the facts of this case,\t are
\nsub-seCtions (4) and (5). Sub-section (4) shows that, in the
\nevent  of the. extinction of the interest of a\tnonoccupancy
\ntenant\tby  reason of his surrender or abandonment  of\tsuch
\ninterest,  or  his death without any heir  to  inherit\tsuch
\ninterest,  all covenants binding and enforceable as  between
\nthe  tenant and the subtenant, subject to the provisions  of
\nsub-section (5), will be binding and enforceable as between’
\nthe tenants’ landholder (proprietor) and the sub-tenant\t for
\nthe remainder Of the term of the sub-lease or for five years
\nwhichever  period  may be the shorter. This means  that\t the
\nterms  and  .conditions under which the defendant  held\t the
\nsub-lease  under Raimal and Bhartu continued to\t be  binding
\nand enforceable between the plaintiff and the defendant\t for
\nthe period from 14.9. 1954, which was the date of  surrender
\nby the tenants, till 31.12.1954, which was the date on which
\nthe defendants’ sub-lease expired. This is, however, subject
\nto sub-section (5) which provides that, if the rent  payable
\nby the sub-tenant is less than the rent that was payable  by
\nthe  tenant, the sub-tenant has the Option of  vacating\t the
\nholding or continuing in possession for the period permitted
\nby  the statute on payment of rent at the higher rate  which
\nwas applicable to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
    These provisions show that, notwithstanding the  extinc-
\ntion of the interest of the tenant by reason of his  surren-
\nder  or any other reason mentioned under sub-section (4),  a
\nsub-tenant  whose subtenancy has not expired,  is  protected
\nfor  the  remainder of the term of the sub-lease  or  for  5
\nyears,\twhichever period be the shorter, but subject to\t the
\nrequirement of sub-section (5) about rent. The statutory
\n682<\/span>
\nright  vested in the defendant thus remained in\t force\tonly
\nfor the statutorily limited period, and not any further. The
\nlimited\t right of the sub-tenant thereafter for the  purpose
\nof  removal  of\t standing crops and other  products  of\t the
\nearth,\tand his obligation to vacate the holding are  stated
\nin section 48:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “48.  When  the interest of  a  sub-tenant  is
\n\t      extinguished  he shall vacate his holding\t but
\n\t      shall have in respect of the removal of stand-
\n\t      ing crops and other products of the earth\t the
\n\t      same  rights  as the tenant  would  have\tupon
\n\t      ejectment in accordance with the provisions of
\n\t      this Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  section  further\temphasises the need  to\t vacate\t the
\nholding\t upon  extinguishment of the interest,\tbut  without
\nprejudice to the right of removal of the standing Crops etc.
\n    We\tshall now consider the two provisions under which  a
\nsuit can be brought. Section 175 (the operation of which now
\nremains stayed) deals with the ejectment of a  non-occupancy
\ntenant,\t while section 180 deals with ejectment of a  person
\nin  occupation of land without consent. We shall first\tread
\nsection\t  175,\tand  then  section  180,  so  far  as\tthey
\nare .material:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “175  …..  a non-occupancy tenant shall also
\n\t      be  liable to ejectment on the application  of
\n\t      the   landholder\ton  any\t of  the   following
\n\t      grounds, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  that he is a tenant holding from year  to
\n\t      year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(b)  that  he is  a  tenant  holding
\n\t      under ,a lease for a period which has  expired
\n\t      or  will expire before the end of the  current
\n\t      agricultural year.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Significantly, this section, dealing with a non-occupan-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
cy  tenant, refers to a tenant falling under clause  (a)  or
\nclause\t(b),  i.e., a tenant having a  present\tinterest  in
\nterms of an unexpired lease or an expired lease under  which
\nhe  holds over. The section has no application to past\tten-
\nants  whose interests have become extinguished for the\trea-
\nsons  stated in section 45 or section 47 or whose lease\t has
\nbeen  duly  determined. On the other hand, persons  who\t are
\nnot,  or,’  who are no longer, tenants at the  time  of\t the
\nsuit, and liable to ejectment, have to be proceeded  against
\nunder section 180:\n<\/p>\n
683<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “180. (1) A person taking or retaining posses-
\n\t      sion of a plot of land without the consent  of
\n\t      the  person  entitled to admit him  to  occupy
\n\t      such  plot  and otherwise than  in  accordance
\n\t      with  the provisions of the law for  the\ttime
\n\t      being  in force, shall be liable to  ejectment
\n\t      under  this section on the suit of the  person
\n\t      so entitled, and also to pay damages which may
\n\t      extend  to four times the annual rental  value
\n\t      calculated  in accordance with the  sanctioned
\n\t      rates applicable to hereditary tenants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Section 180 has no application to a present tenant. This
\nsection provides for ejectment of a person in occupation  of
\nland without a valid consent.. He is a person who has  taken
\nor  retained possession of land without the consent  of\t the
\nlandlord  and contrary to law. He may have taken  possession
\nby  trespass, or after being in lawful occupation,  retained
\npossession  contrary to the will of the person\tentitled  to
\nadmit him to occupy the land and without the support of law;
\nin  either event he is a person liable to be  ejected  under
\nsection 180. It makes no difference. for the purpose of this
\nsection that a person was in unauthorised occupation at\t all
\nmaterial  times,  or, the occupation was authorised  at\t its
\ncommencement,  but  became  unauthorised by  reason  of\t the
\nauthority to occupy having been extinguished by operation of
\nlaw, or duly determined by the person entitled to give\tsuch
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
    Unlike section 175, which is, as seen above, confined to
\na  person  who is a tenant either in terms of  an  unexpired
\nlease  or  by reason of .his being allowed  to\tcontinue  in
\npossession  after  the expiry of the period  of\t the  lease,
\nsection\t 180 concerns a person who was never, or who  is  no
\nlonger,\t a  tenant. Apart from a mere trespasser,  a  person
\nremaining  in  possession of the land,\tnotwithstanding\t the
\nextinguishment of his interestor determination of his lease,
\nand  without the consent of andcontrary to the will  of\t the
\nlandlord,  and otherwise than as permitted by  law,  equally
\nfalls within the ambit of section 180. Any such person\tdoes
\nnot  hold  under a lease and is not a  ‘tenant”\t within\t the
\nmeaning of section 175. He has no present right of ‘holding’
\nor ‘retaining possession’ of the land. The expression  ‘hol-
\nding’ is defined under section 3(7)
\nas :.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “a  parcel or parcels of land held  under\t one
\n\t      lease, engagement or grant, or in the  absence
\n\t      of  such lease, engagement or grant under\t one
\n\t      tenure and in the case of a thekadar  includes
\n\t      the theka area”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      684<\/span><\/p>\n
This  shows  that there must be an  existing  or  continuing
\nlegal  relationship  between the owner and’  the  person  in
\npossession of the land. In the absence of any such relation-
\nship, either ‘because no lease or anyother interest or right
\nwas ever granted or because it was duly determined or extin-
\nguished,  a person retaining possession of the land  without
\nthe  consent and contrary to the will of the  landlord\tdoes
\nnot come within. the purview of section 175.
\n    While  the legislature provides for the ejectment  of  a
\nnonoccupancy  tenant on the grounds specified under  section
\n175, section 180 is meant for ejectment of a person who\t has
\nno present right to retain possession of land either because
\nhis occupation commenced without any such right or the right
\nby  which  he commenced the occupation has since  been\tduly
\nextinguished  or terminated in accordance – with the law  in
\nforce.\n<\/p>\n
    Speaking  of section 180, K. Subba Rao, J. (as  he\tthen
\nwas) in Bhinka & Ors v. Charan Singh,<\/a> [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 798
\nat 808, observes:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  …..\t  The  word “taking”  applies  to  a
\n\t      person taking possession of a land.  otherwise
\n\t      than in accordance with the provisions of\t the
\n\t      law;  while the word “retaining” to  a  person
\n\t      taking  possession  in  accordance  with\t the
\n\t      provisions of the law but subsequently retain-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ing the same illegally
\nSo construed, it is section 180, and not section 175,  which
\nshould apply ‘to a person who is in unlawful or unauthorised
\noccupation of land.\n<\/p>\n
       Mr.  V.M.  Tarkunde, counsel for the  the  appellant-
\ndefendant,however,  submits  that the defendant\t is  not  in
\nunlawful or unauthorised or illegal occupation of the  land,
\nbut  he\t is inoccupation by reason of his  being  a  lessee,
\nalthough  the  term of the lease has since expired.  In\t the
\nCase  Of such a person, it is section 175 that applies.\t Mr.
\nTarkunde says that the interest of the defendant in the land
\ncontinues eveni.after termination of the period of his\tsub-
\nlease  and  notwithstanding the\t plaintiffs  notice  calling
\nupon’  him to quit. His interest in the land, counsel  says,
\nis  not\t extinguished  by reason of the\t extinction  of\t the
\ninterests of the tenants. The defendant ceased to be a\tsub-
\ntenant\tand was elevated’ to the position of a\ttenant\tupon
\nthe extinction of the interests of the tenants by reason  of
\ntheir surrender of the holding,\t  This argument is urged  by
\ncounsel on the basis of his construction of
\n685<\/span>
\nsection 47 which, in our view, is not correct.
\n    Section  47(1), as seen above, specifically\t says  that,
\nexcept\tas  otherwise provided in sub-section (3)  and\tsub-
\nsection\t (4), the extinguishment of the interest of  a\tnon-
\nocCupancy  tenant will, extinguish the interest of his\tsub-
\ntenant.\t Once  the  interest Of the person  under  whom\t the
\ndefendant held the land was extinguished, the defendant\t was
\nno longer a sub-tenant, but a person enjoying a legal  right
\nfor  a limited period in terms of the statute. As stated  by
\nthis Court in Birendra Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Gulwant  Singh
\n& Ors.,<\/a> [1968] 2 SCR 870, 878-879:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  …..\t  .The\tsubsequent  possession\twas,
\n\t      however,\tunder a legal right and\t that  right
\n\t      accrued  to the appellants  under\t sub-section
\n\t      (4)  of  section 47  …..   This\t sub-section
\n\t      does not lay down that the original  sub-lease
\n\t      executed by the chief, tenant, who  surrenders
\n\t      his1  rights,  is to continue in\tforce.\tWhat
\n\t      this  provision does is to create a new  right
\n\t      in  the  sub-tenant and that  is\tthe  limited
\n\t      right  to continue in possession for  the\t re-
\n\t      mainder  of the term of the sub-lease  or\t for
\n\t      five    years   whichever\t  period   may\t  be
\n\t      shorter  …..  “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  shows that the sub-tenant was no longer a holder’\t of.
\nany  parcel of land once his right to hold was\textinguished
\nand  his  statutory right for the limited. period  had\talso
\nexpired\t in  terms of section 47.-When that  event  has\t oc-
\ncurred,\t he  has  no further interest in the  land  and\t his
\ncontinued  occupation  is, as pointed out by this  Court  in
\nBhinka\t(supra), only an unauthorised or illegal occupation.
\n    Referring to sub-section (4) of section. 47, this Court,
\nin Birendra Pratap Singh (supra) stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  ….\t So far as the right granted  by  s.
\n\t      47(4)  is\t concerned,  it is  granted  by\t the
\n\t      statute itself for ‘a limited period and, once
\n\t      that  period expires, it cannot be  held\tthat
\n\t      the  right continues thereafter. There  is  no
\n\t      requirement  in law that, after the expiry  of
\n\t      that period. there must be eviction from\t.the
\n\t      land in order to extinguish the right  granted
\n\t      by s. 47(4). The possession subsequent to 30th
\n\t      June, 1951 cannot, therefore, be held to be in
\n\t      pursuance\t of  a right .conferred\t on  a\tsub-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      tenant referred to in s. 47(4) Of the  Tenancy
\n\t      Act
\n\t      686<\/span>
\n\t      and,  consequently, the land was not  held  by
\n\t      the  appellants  thereafter  in  the  capacity
\n\t      mentioned in s. 19(vii) of the Act…….”,,
\nThis observation regarding section 47(4) of the Act was made
\nby this Court with reference to section 19(vii) of the\tU.P.
\nZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 195\n<\/p>\n
1). The’ construction placed on section 47(4) of the Act  in
\nthat  decision\tsupports the view we have indicated  on\t the
\npoint in issue, and that .decision was rightly relied on  by
\nthe High Court in coming to the conclusion which it did.
\n    Mr.\t J.P.  Goyal,  supplementing the  arguments  of\t Mr.
\nTarkunde,  places reliance on certain observations  of\tthis
\nCourt in Biswabani (P) Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta & Ors.,<\/a> [
\n1980] 1 SCR 650. That decision refers to the protection of a
\nstatutory tenant in terms of the West Bengal Premises Tenacy
\nAct, 1956. This Court stated that, even after the expiry  of
\nthe  contractual  tenancy, the tenant would  continue  as  a
\nstatutory tenant, except where he has surrendered possession
\nor  has\t been evicted under the enabling provisions  of\t the
\nrelevant  Rent Restriction Act. That decision has  no  rele-
\nvance  to the facts of this case where the question  relates
\nto  the construction of the relevant provisions of  the\t Act
\nunder  Which separate and special provisions have been\tmade
\nto regulate the rights and liabilities of different  catego-
\nries  of tenants, including non-occupancy tenants with\twhom
\nalone  we are concerned. Their liability to ejectment,\t‘fo-
\nllowing the extinction of their interests and rights in\t the
\nland, is regulated by statute.\n<\/p>\n
    The views expressed by the Full Bench of the High  Court
\nare  correct.  The  learned Judges have\t rightly  held\tthat
\ninsofar as the defendant has continued to remain in  occupa-
\ntion of the land even after the expiry of the .period of his
\nlease,\tand despite the landlord’s notice to quit the  prem-
\nises,  he can no longer be regarded as a tenant referred  to
\nin  clause  (a) or (b) of section 175 and,  therefore,\tthat
\nsection\t has  no application to him. The  right\t section  in
\nterms of which a suit has to be brought against him, as\t the
\nplaintiff has done in the present case, is section 180.
\nAccordingly there is no merit in this appeal.
\n    R.M. SAHAI, J. While joining’ in the opinion of  brother
\nThommen, J., few words are being added, on nature of  inter-
\nest created
\n687<\/span>
\nunder sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the U.P. Tenancy\t Act
\nof 1939
\n(referred hereinafter as the Act).\n<\/p>\n
    Sub-tenant, literally or statutorily either in the\tRent
\nControl legislations or agricultural tenancies, normally, is
\na  ,person in possession holding from the tenant. His  right
\nor  interest  depends on provi-sions in the  Statute.  Under
\nU.P.  Tenancy  Act, sub;tenant according  toclause  (22)  of
\nsection 3 holds land from a tenant. Even though he isinclud-
\ned  in the definition of tenant in clause (23) and  is\tnon-
\noccupationally\tunder  Section\t31 of the Act,\tyet,  he  is
\ninferior class of tenant a she is specifically precluded  by
\nSection\t 39 from subletting and has nosecurity of tenure  as
\nhe can be evicted under Section 175 of the Actand his inter-
\nest   in  the  holding\textinguishes,\tstatutorily,   under
\nSection47  on  extinction of interest of  his  tenant  under
\nSection\t 45 of the Act.Similar provision for extinction\t .of
\ntenancy\t existed  in Agra TenancyAct  of  1926.\t Sub-section
\n3 .and 4 are, in fact, identical with sub-section.2 and 3 of
\nthe 1926 Act. Even Section 28 of N.W.P. Tenancy Act 1901(Act
\nII  of.\t 1901) provided for extinction of interest  of\tsub-
\ntenant\tonejectment of his tenant under Section 57  of\tthat
\nAct.  And  on extinc-tion, for other reasons,  the  covenant
\nbinding\t and  enforceable as bet-ween tenant  and  the\tsub-
\ntenant\tbecame binding between tenants land-holder  and\t the
\nsub-tenant .and he was permitted, at his option, tocontinue,
\nin possession for the remainder period of lease, on  paymen-
\ntof the rent which was being paid by the tenant,  Therefore,
\ncontinuanceof  sub-tenant under the covenant between  tenant
\nand  sub-tenant exis-ted in Tenancy legislations right\tfrom
\n1901.  But there existed a vitaldifference between 1901\t Act
\non one hand and 1926 and 1939 Act on the other. In 1901\t Act
\nthe  sub-lessee could continue .’for the remainderperiod  of
\nthe  term  of  the sub-lease’ whereas under  1926  and\t1939
\nActsthe period was fixed depending on if the sub-tenancy was
\ncreatedbefore or after 1st January 1902. In the former\tcase
\nthe sub-lesseecould continue for, ‘the remainder term of the
\nsub-lease  or  for  the lifetime of the tenant\tor  for\t ten
\nyears’, whichever period was the shortest and in latter ‘for
\nthe  remainder period of the lease or five years’  whichever
\nWas shorter. Reason for fixation of period by latter  enact-
\nments, namely 1926 and 1939 was to remove uncertainty  about
\nlandholders  interest as the tenants,  particularly  widows,
\nwho  had.lmited .interest, only, at times created  permanent
\nsub-tenancy  or subtenancies for long durations\t under\t1901
\nAct. This resulted in mass of litigation and at times  there
\nwas  sharp divergence of. opinion between Board of  Revenue,
\nthe  highest. authority in the hierarchy of  revenue  courts
\ndealing\t with agricultural holdings and the High  Court.  It
\nwas  to.  put this controversy at end and  reationalise\t the
\nlaw, ineeping with the.\n<\/p>\n
688<\/span><\/p>\n
spirit\tof those times when tiller of the soil\tconcept\t was
\nstill far, that the Legislature altered the law and provided
\nfor durational or limited interest. To appreciate its nature
\nduring\tsubsistance  of the covenant and  thereafter  it  is
\nnecessary to extract relevant sub-sections of Section 47:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “47.  (1)Except as otherwise provided in\tsub-
\n\t      section (3) and sub-section (4) the extinction
\n\t      of  the  interest of a tenant,  other  than  a
\n\t      permanent\t tenure-holder or a fixed rate\tten-
\n\t      ant, shall operate to extinguish the  interest
\n\t      of any tenant holding under him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) ………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) ……………………..
\n\t      (4)  Where, at the time of the  extinction  by
\n\t      surrender or abandonment, or by death  without
\n\t      any heir entitled to inherit such interest, of
\n\t      the  interest in a holding of a  tenant  other
\n\t      than  a permanent tenure-holder or  fixed-rate
\n\t      tenant,  there  is in existence a\t valid\tsub-
\n\t      lease  of\t the whole or of a  portion  of\t the
\n\t      holding, executed on or after the first day of
\n\t      January  1902,  all  covenants.  binding\t and
\n\t      enforceable  as  between the  tenant  and\t the
\n\t      sub-tenant shall, subject to the provisions of
\n\t      sub-section (5), be binding and enforceable as
\n\t      between  the tenant’s landholder and the\tsub-
\n\t      tenant  for the remainder of the term  of\t the
\n\t      sub-lease or for.five years, whichever  period
\n\t      may be the shorter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)  In the cases referred to  in\t sub-section
\n\t      (3) and subsection (4), if the rent payable by
\n\t      the  sub-tenant  is less\tthan  that  hitherto
\n\t      payable  by the tenant, the  sub-tenant  shall
\n\t      have  the option of vacating the holding,\t but
\n\t      shall,  if  he  Continues\t in  possession,  be
\n\t      liable  to  pay  rent a.t\t the  rate  hitherto
\n\t      payable by the tenant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    What is apparent, from a bare perusal of sub-section (1)
\nof Section 47 is that it is Wider in application and immedi-
\nate in operation.\n<\/p>\n
689<\/span><\/p>\n
It extends to every tenant holding under a tenant other than
\npermanent  tenure holder or fixed rate tenant. The  interest
\nof  such tenant extinguishes, automatically and\t immediately
\nby  operation of law on extinction of interest of his  chief
\ntenant.\t No further requirement is contemplated. He  becomes
\nliable to ejectment. If he .continues in possession he is  a
\ntrespasser   unless   he   holds   With\t  consent   of\t the
\nlandholder\/landlord expressly or impliedly. For\t sub-tenants
\nit  has been made more explicit by Section 48 of the Act  as
\nhe is required to vacate the holding except for the standing
\ncrops  and  produce which he is permitted to remove  as\t any
\nother  tenant ejected in accordance with the  provisions  of
\nthe Act. Thus a tenants more so a Sub-tenant, continuing  in
\npossession after extinction, of his interest as provided  by
\nSection 47, cannot be considered to be in possession in\t any
\nother capacity but as retaining possession otherwise than in
\naccordance with the law for the time being in force.
\n    Is\tthe  result! any different for a sub-tenant  who  is
\npermitted to continue for the remainder period of  sub-lease
\nby sub-section (4) of Section 47? Tenancy extinguishes under
\nsection\t 45 for various reasons. Consequence of it on  right
\nof  a tenant holding under him is mentioned in\tSection\t 47.
\nSince  sub-tenant, is tenant and holds from the\t tenant\t his
\ninterest,  too,\t extinguishes by operation of law.  But\t the
\nLegislature made an exception in favour of those sub-tenants
\nwhose  interest\t came to an end either\tbecause\t the  tenant
\nsurrendered   or. abandoned his holding or died without\t any
\nheir to inherit his interest, obviously, to avoid any preju-
\ndice  to  a  weaker class of tenant due to  conduct  of\t his
\ntenant\tor  for reasons beyond control of  anyone.  But\t the
\nexpression, ‘Except as provided’ in sub-section (1) does not
\ncarve  out  an exception to extinction of interest  of\tsub-
\ntenant\tbut to its immediate operation. That is interest  in
\nthe  holding is extinguished but from a future\tdate  namely
\nexpiry\tof the period of leases or five years  whichever  is
\nshorter. This benefit or .concession cannot be stretched  to
\nvest  any  fresh tenancy right.in’ him after expiry  of\t the
\nperiod. On a combined reading of sub-section (1) of  Section
\n47  with sub-section (4) the plain and simple  meaning\tthat
\nemerges\t is that the interest of .a sub-tenant\textinguishes
\non  surrender  by his tenant but this, is deferred  for\t the
\nperiod\tmentioned in this sub-section. The right created  by
\nsub-section (4) being limited in operation it cannot  extend
\nbeyond\tthe  ,period  mentioned in it,.\t Otherwise  the\t sub
\nsection (4) and sub-section (1) of the Act would be on cross
\npurpose with each other. Interpreting the Sub-section in any
\nother manner would be against principle of construction,  as
\nsub-section  (4). cannot be read in isolation. That  is\t the
\nconsequence  provided for-in sub-section (1) do\t take  place
\nbut in the
\n690<\/span>
\nmanner\tprovided by sub-section (4). To put it, simply,\t the
\nextinction  is complete but its operation is postponed to  a
\nlater date..\n<\/p>\n
    Effort  was\t made  to distort the  otherwise  plain\t and
\nsimple\tconstruction  by urging that since  sub-section\t (5)
\nenjoins\t paying of same rent, as the tenant who had  surren-
\ndered,\tthe  right  and interest of  the  sub-tenant  stands
\nenhanced,  by  operation of law and  he\t stands\t substituted
\nin.place  of  his tenant with higher rights  than  he  held.
\nNatural follow up of it, added the .learned counsel, is that
\nnew  right  or interest created under Section  47(4)  cannot
\nextinguish  after  expiry of the period except\tas  provided
\nunder  section\t45  of the Act. The  argument  suffers\tfrom
\ninherent fallacy, Section 47(4) does not arrest\t extinction.
\nIt  only postpones it. In Birendra Pratap  v..Gulwant  Singh
\nand  Others,  AIR 1968 SC 1068 this Court  while  construing
\nsub-section (4)of Section 47 observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “So far as the right granted by Section  47(4)
\n\t      is  concerned,  it is granted by\tthe  statute
\n\t      itself  for  a limited period and,  once\tthat
\n\t      period  expires,\tit cannot be held  that\t the
\n\t      right continues thereafter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No new tenancy is created. What is made binding and enforce-
\nable  is  the old covenant existing between the\t tenant\t and
\nsub-tenant  for the remainder period of the sub-lease.\tThus
\nwhatever  right a sub-tenant acquires under sub-section\t (4)
\nit ceases to operate after the expiry of period of lease  or
\nthe  period mentioned in the sub-section. No second  extinc-
\ntion  is visualised. That would be not. only doing  violence
\nto the language of the sub-sections but would also result in
\nnullifying the . effect of sub-section ‘(1) completely.
\n    Status  of\ta person in possession after expiry  of\t the
\nremainder  period  of  lease or five years  as\tprovided  in
\nSection\t 47(4)\tcan neither be .of statutory  tenant  nor  a
\ntenant holding over as understood is common parlance. He  is
\na  person  in possession without authority of  law.  A\tsub-
\ntenant whose extinction is postponed as a matter of  conces-
\nsion  because  of the tenant’s prejudicial  acts  cannot  be
\nplaced\tany higher than other sub-tenants who  are  required
\n‘to  vacate  their holding immediately\tunder  -Section\t 48.
\nTherefore  retention of possession by such person cannot  be
\nexcept ,otherwise than in accordance with the provisions  of
\nthe Act for the time being in force.\n<\/p>\n
691<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Full Bench therefore did not commit any error of law
\nin  applying the ratio laid down by this Court\tin  Birendra
\nPratap\tSingh v. Gulwant Singh and Others,<\/a> (supra) that\t the
\neffect of extinction of sub-tenant’s interest under  Section
\n47(1)  of  the Act was not only that, ‘he  could  no  longer
\nbe  .held to be in the capacity of sub-tenant’ but even\t the
\n‘new right’ of continuance for the remainder period of lease
\nwhich  was created under Section 47(4) was limited  and\t did
\nnot  vest  any right in such person to continue\t after\tthat
\ndate  nor any-fresh right of sub-tenancy could be deemed  to
\naccrue\tconsequently possession of Such person after  expiry
\nof  the\t extended period, was Otherwise that  in  accordance
\nwith the provision of taw against whom a suit for  ejectment
\nunder Section 180 of the Act was maintanable.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appeal  thus as held by brother Thommen,  J.,  is
\ndevoid of any merit.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER
\n       For  the\t reasons stated by us in  our  separate\t but
\nconcurring judgments dated August 21, 1991, we see no  merit
\nin  fids appeal and it is accordingly dismissed\t with  costs
\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n692<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 2072, 1991 SCR (3) 672 Author: R Sahai Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J) PETITIONER: LALA RAGHURAJ SWARUP (DEAD) BY L.RS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HARDWARI LAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/08\/1991 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\"},\"wordCount\":5350,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\",\"name\":\"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991","datePublished":"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991"},"wordCount":5350,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991","name":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By ... vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T17:35:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-raghuraj-swarup-dead-by-vs-hardwari-lal-and-ors-on-21-august-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lala Raghuraj Swarup (Dead) By … vs Hardwari Lal And Ors on 21 August, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}