ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave is granted limited to the question to which notice was issued, namely, whether a person who has been cultivating any land while claiming to be in adverse possession, can be said to be cultivating the land lawfully within the meaning of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 2. One Mallaiah, who was the appellant and whose legal representatives are brought on record, fought earlier litigation in the civil court claiming to be in adverse possession of the land in dispute. Even before the Land Revenue Authorities he stuck to the same plea. The authorities also found that there was nothing on record to conclude that he ever paid the rent or did anything to show that his possession was lawful. This being the factual position, the question that arises is whether he is entitled to claim deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Section 4 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows:- "4. Persons to be deemed tenants-A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (a) a member of the owner s family, or (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner s family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession: Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appointed day- (i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant." 4. A bare reading of the Section extracted above, shows that to claim the benefit of this Section non-payment of rent by the claimant is not relevant. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant." 4. A bare reading of the Section extracted above, shows that to claim the benefit of this Section non-payment of rent by the claimant is not relevant. The pertinent factors are that he must be (1) cultivating the land in question; (2) in lawful possession of the land belonging to another person and that (3) such land is not cultivated by the owner. On these requirements being satisfied Section 4 declares that the cultivator shall be deemed a tenant of such land. But, the benefit of this Section is not available to a cultivator who is: (a) a member of owner s family, or (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share and is cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner s family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession. Further the proviso thereto mentions the case in which the deeming provision will not apply and such a person shall not be deemed to be a tenant. And that is if on an application made by the owner of the land within one year from the appointed day (October 2, 1965), the Tribunal declares that such a person is not a tenant and that order has become final or where the order of Tribunal refusing to make such a declaration is reversed on appeal. 5. On this construction of the Section it is evident that the appellant who has claimed to be in adverse possession of the land in question cannot legitimately assert to be lawfully cultivating the land within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act and therefore he cannot avail the benefit of the said Section of being a deemed tenant. In this view, we do not find any merit in these appeals. There are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Mallaiah (D) by LRs. v. Doddasooraiah (D) by LRs., 2001(6) Supreme 267 00032 00033