In Brief
The appellants were sub-lessees of land under a Government lease executed in 1920. When the Government lessee's land was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, the appellants applied to be treated as independent tenure holders. The Supreme Court held that while the Ceiling Act's definitions might textually include sub-lessees, the terms of the Government grant override statutory definitions and create only ostensible tenure for the sub-lessee. The Government lessee remains the real holder. Sub-leases for agricultural purposes, though exempt from transfer conditions, do not confer independent tenancy rights. Accordingly, the appellants' land must be clubbed with the Government lessee's holding for ceiling purposes, and the ceiling authority rightly dismissed their claim."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.