Full Judgment
R. Gururajan, J.
1. This petition is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the order of the District Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, in Appeal No. DAAA.AP. 183 of 1986. The petitioner filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights for one acre in Sy. No. 432, Kondli Village, Siddapur Taluq. The Tribunal granted tenancy rights in favour of the tenant. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the Tribunal. This order of the Appellate Authority is challenged by the tenant in this Court.
2. I have heard Sri R.S. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3 and Sri G. Krishna Reddy, Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority is wrong in reversing the order of the Land Tribunal. According to him the Tribunal based on the material placed before it has come to a right conclusion that he is a tenant and that fact finding is reversed by the Appellate Authority on unsustainable grounds. He took me through the order of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal to convince his stand.
4. Per contra Sri Srikante Gowda, learned Counsel for the respondent 3 pointed out to me that after a careful consideration the Appellate Authority came to a definite conclusion that the tenancy is not proved and that finding is based on facts. He supports the order.
5. In the light of the submissions I have carefully gone through the impugned orders on hand. Before the Tribunal evidence was recorded and the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the tenant based on two documents Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 and alleged lease deeds in favour of the petitioner herein. The Tribunal accepts the lands as belonging to the Mutt. It holds that the Mahalinga Devaru Swami who was appointed by the Mutt has given lease to the petitioners. With these reasonings the Tribunal granted the leasehold rights in favour of the tenants ignoring the revenue entries in favour of the Mutt. When this was challenged before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority in a detailed order reversed the finding of the Tribunal. Appellate Authority notices that the evidence of the tenant is sketchy before the Tribunal to say the least. It notices that petitioner (respondent 2) in his evidence stated that he has been inducted as a tenant by Sri Mahalinga Devaru Swami and that Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 have been filed in support of this case. Both are admittedly xerox copies. It has noticed these two documents and after noticing it comes to a conclusion that Sri Mahalinga Devaru Swami cannot create lease of tenancy of Mutt lands without any authority whatsoever in his favour. Revenue entries reveal lands belonging to Brahan Mutt and the Mahalingaswamy cannot create any lease in favour of the present petitioner on behalf of Mutt in the absence of any power to grant or act on behalf of Mutt insofar as Mutt lands are con-cerned. Even the power alleged to have been granted in favour of Mahalinga Devaru Swami reveals that he is only asked to look after the moveables and has not been given any right insofar as immovable property of the Mutt. After noticing all these material facts the Appellate Authority holds that in the absence of any power available to Sri Mahalinga Devaru Swami the Tribunal cannot grant any occupancy rights to the petitioner on the basis of a tenancy through Sri Mahalinga Devaru Swami. Tenancy is a serious matter to be proved in accordance with law. Person who grants tenancy must be having a right to grant the same. If such tenancy in this way is accepted on the basis of a alleged grant by a person without any authority or power, no one is safe in these proceedings and justice would suffer before the Tribunal. Any such tenancy without any power on the part of a person granting right is not binding on the real owner and a real owner of lands can only create tenancy whatsoever and not somebody without any right claiming to be a person to create tenancy and any such tenancy is without authority. After noticing all this the Appellate Authority has rejected the question of tenancy rightly in my view. Counsel is unable to show from the records evidence before the Court of any right of grant by Mutt.
6. The Counsel relies on Section 4 to contend that even otherwise his tenancy can be equated to a deemed tenancy. I am afraid this argument is not available. Deemed tenancy is available only in the case of tenant who is lawfully cultivating the lands. Admittedly in the case on hand the real owner, the Mutt has not permitted or granted the respondent to cultivate the land belonging to Mutt. Therefore, Section 4 is not available to the petitioner in the case on hand.
7. It cannot be forgotten that the respondent 3 is a Mutt known as Muru Murugarajendra Mahaswami Chitradurga Mutt engaged in religious activity. The Mutt activities has to be carried on through some Agency. That Agency unless and otherwise is given an express right to lease the Mutt lands, no lease can be said to have been legally come into existence in favour of any tenant. The Mutt lands has to be protected since those lands have been granted to the Mutt by philanthropists for Mutt/religious activities. If persons who are asked to look after the Mutt properties are permitted to create lease able rights, such leases are not binding on the Mutt. Therefore Courts/Tribunal must be cautious in analysing any documents said to have been executed by Mutt representatives with' regard to his right to represent the Mutt and to create rights affecting the Mutt properties because any such creation of any right by such representative affects the rights of the Mutt. Rights have to be created in a manner known to law. The Mutt properties cannot be misused by the representatives since the mutt properties held by the Mutt as somewhat Trustee which are granted to the Mutt by devotees of the Mutt for religious purposes. In the case on hand what the Appellate Authority has done is to reject any unlawful creation of tenancy rights by Sri Mahalinga Devaru Swami purporting to represent the Chitradurga Brahan Mutt in the matter of Mutt property.
8. The revenue entries support the case of the Mutt. Taking into consideration all these aspects including effect of P. 8 and P. 9 the Appellate Authority rightly allowed the appeal. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority. I confirm the said order.
9. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority has committed any error on the facts of this case.
10. In these circumstances I accept the order of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the petition as devoid of merits.
11. No costs.