A. Anthonimuthu Samban vs Sri Sethuranga Vallabanathaswamy Devasthanam, Poovanur

Veeraswami, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, in R. A. No. 29 of 1958.

The tenant is the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the Rent Court, Tanjavoor, in F. R. P. No. 164 of 1958 for fixing the fair rent under S. 9 of

Madras Act XXIV of 1956 in respect of 6 acres and 75 cents comprised in R. S. Nos. 14, 15 and 16/1 in Rayapuram Village, and 82 cents in R.

S. No. 196/3 in Poovanur village. It may be mentioned that out of these extents of land, the petitioner purported to surrender 92 cents of land,

evidently with a view to qualify himself for the benefits of the Act. It may also be mentioned that the same petitioner had on a previous occasion in

F. R. P. No. 181 of 1957 applied for fixation of fair rent. In that petition, the presiding officer of the Rent Court fixed the fair rent for the year

1956-57 and held that the petitioner Was not entitled for the benefits of the Act for the future years. The petition for fixation of fair rent out of

which the present petition arises was resisted by the respondent landlord on the ground that the petitioner having not relinquished the 92 cents at

the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957, he was not entitled to surrender that exert in the subsequent year and claim the benefits of the Act.

The Rent Court did not accept that contention and fixed the fair rent. On appeal, the learned District Munsif, on a consideration of the scope of

S. 14 (2), held that the petitioner having failed to avail himself of the option to relinquish the necessary extent of land in order to qualify himself to

the benefits of the Act, was not entitled to surrender any portions of the land subsequent to the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and

claim the benefits of the Act.

In this revision, Mr. Sankaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urges that the learned District Munsif was wrong in the view he took of the

scope of S. 14 (2) and that under that section, the tenant would be entitled to relinquish the portion of land in excess of one veil even subsequent to

the agricultural year ending in 1957. The question is whether this contention is well founded.

The Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, is an Act to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants under

certain areas in the State of Madras. Cl. (b) of S. 2 defines a cultivating tenant in the following terms:

Cultivating tenant'' means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of any land

belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any such person who continues in possession of the land after

determination of the tenancy agreement or the heirs of such person, but shall not include a mere intermediary or his heirs.''''

S. 14(1) provides that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or

owner or as both, an extent of land in excess of one veil (6-2/3 acres) of wet land. Sub-S. (2)of S. 14 reads:

Any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or as owner or as both, an extent of land exceeding that specified in Sub-S.

(1) but not exceeding ten acres of wet land may by notice in writing addressed to the landowner, relinquish at the end of the agricultural year

ending in 1957 the tenancy, in respect of such portion of the land aforesaid, as may be necessary to entitle him to all the benefits of a cultivating

tenant under this Act. Such cultivating tenant shall be entitled to all the benefits of this Act till the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and

shall thereafter be entitled to all the rights of a cultivating tenant under this Act only on such relinquishment.

Obviously, but for this sub-section, tenants owning or cultivating either as tenants or owners or as both, an extent of land in excess of one veli

would not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. But this sub-section provides that in the case of tenants cultivating an extent of land not exceeding

ten acres of wet land, they may have the option of relinquishing at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the extent of land in excess of one

veli so that they may qualify themselves for the benefits of the Act. If the tenant has the option to relinquish the land in excess of one veli even

subsequent to the agricultural year ending in 1957, the words in the section ''relinquish at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the

tenancy'' etc., would be meaningless. It seems to me that the intention of S. 14 (2) is that tenants who are in possession of an extent of land in

excess of one veli should exercise the option to relinquish in terms of Sub-S. (2), that is to say, at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957. If

they fail to do so, they will not, in my opinion, be entitled to the benefits of the Act. Sub-S. (2) of S. 14 does not in terms give the tenant"" an option

to relinquish any portion in excess of one veli at any time he likes.

In that view of S. 14 (2), I consider that the petitioner was not entitled under that provision to relinquish the 92 cents of land which was in

excess of one veli after the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and claim the benefits of the Act. The revision petition fails and is dismissed

with costs.