P (PLP)

In these two appeals, the same point is involved, and the question is whether the lease on which the claims made against the appellants were based was a valid lease in law. This lease was executed by Mir Sahib Mir Mian Budhokhan Sahib, a jagirdar to Tando Muhammad Khan, in favour of the respondents. The lease related to lands in soma pf which the lessor bad only the rights of a Jagirdar, the lessor also had Zamindari rights. Some of these lands were cultivated by Mourusi haris. Under the terms of the lease, the respondents stepped into the shoes of the lessor as jagirdar and Zamindar for the period of the lease. The respondents were to receive all the dues receivable from the cultivators by the lessor as Zamindar or as Jagirdar, to make the necessary arrangements for the maintenance of the watercourses in order and for providing the lands with water, to pay whatever was payable w to Government either by way, of assessment or expenses incurred on repairs of the water channels, and the respondents were also to get the lands cultivated by haris," "Clause (10) of the lease is "That lessee will get cultivated land from his haris at his will. It is in hands of lessee to keep or dismiss haris. This lease was only executed by the lessor, and not by the lessee. The Subordinate judge of Mirpurkhas dismissed the suit filed by the respondent against the appellants for sums alleged to be due under the lease on the ground that as the lease was not " executed by both the lessor and the lessee " as required by S. 107, T. P. Act, the lease was not a valid lease. (2) On appeal, the District Judge of Hyderabad remanded the suit holding that the lease was a valid one. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned District judge is as follows :‑ ?Lastly it is urged by Mr. Thakurdas that the lease in question is not an agricultural lease. I have carefully gone through the lease and am of opinion that this is an agricultural lease and not a non‑agricultural lease. The lease relates to agricultural lands. It specifies the canal from which water is received for cultivation of these lands. It recites that Government dues shall be paid by the lessee, that if there is any new settlement (i.e., revision of assessment) the lessor is not bound to pay it. It recites that the produce of the Jaghiri rights shall be taken by the lessee and not the lessor, that expenses incurred in digging and other agricultural operations shall be borne by the lessee, that the lessee is to get lands cultivated by his haris according to his will and that he may increase the batai assessment payable by tenants but not reduce them. In my opinion this is clearly an agricultural lease and not a non‑agricultural lease.? And he came to the conclusion that the lease was saved by the provisions of S. 117, T. P. Act. (3) Now before it can be held that the lease was saved, and was valid by reason of S. 1 17, T. P. Act, it is necessary to show that the lease was a lease for agricultural purposes." It is pointed out that the undoubted fact that the lease related to agricultural land did not make the lease a " lease for agricultural purposes." (4) Mr. Manghanmal who appears for the appellants has referred to the case of Ballabh Das v. Murat Nara in Singly in which Sulaiman J. had to consider the meaning of the words " a lease for agricultural purposes," and stated ; ?It is, therefore, important to consider whether the lease in question was or was not a lease for agricultural purposes. If it was not a lease for agricultural purposes, then it would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the Agra Tenancy Act . . . . The expression agricultural purposes has not been defined anywhere but a lease cannot be called a lease for agricultural purposes unless the primary object of the lease is cultivation or agriculture, It is therefore, necessary to examine the terms if the lease itself is called zar‑i‑peshgi lease in perpetuity. The entire village is leased to the lessee who is put in, possession thereof and authorised to let out land to tenants and make collections. Clause (3) of the lease provides that the lessee will be entitled to all the income, produce, mal, and profit arising from oral, sairitem sir land, high and low lands, water and forest produce, tanks and ponds, groves, markets, bares, (enclosures), land on the banks of the Ganges which may appear or disappear by fluvial action of the river. Although the power of the lessee is described in detail, there is no express mention that he is to cultivate the lands himself. No doubt such power would be implied, but the point is that there is no express mention of any intention on the part of the lessee to cultivate the lands himself The lessee is not entitled to plant groves on the land. The lessee is also to be responsible for payment of Government revenue and cesses. Reading the lease as a whole, therefore, it is impossible to say that the primary object of this transaction was agriculture, that is to say, that the entire village was let out to Kalka Parsad Singh for the purposes of cultivation or other agricultural purposes. Part of the village consists of waste and abadi lands and it was not likely that all the area could be brought under cultivation. Having regard to all these circumstances, it is impossible to hold that the lease in dispute in this case was a lease for agricultural purposes???.." The effect of the lease in this case was to transfer to the respondent certain rights which the lessor exercised as a Zamindar and Jagirdar. This was a con?tract between a Zamindar and Zamindar regarding zamindari rights and no a contract between Zamindar and cultivator, or a cultivator and cultivator for agricultural purposes, that is to say, for tire purpose of actually cultivating the land, setting out the terms on which the cultivator was to cultivate and occupy the land and for the purposes of cultivation. The decision of the Subordinate Judge therefore, appears to be correct, and the decision of the learned District judge did not deal with the actual point which was in issue. (5) I accordingly allow these appeals and restore the judgments of the trial Court dismissing the suits. The appellants will have their costs throughout. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.