AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Mohanti, J.—This second appeal, by the Plaintiff, is against a vesting decree of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and eviction of the Defendants from a house described in Schedule B of the plaint, for a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to remove some encroachments and for damages.
Plaintiff''s case was that the land on which the suit house stands was allotted to him in a family partition. Before the partition, Ratan Luhura, the father of Defendant No. 1 was in forcible occupation of the rooms described in Schedules A and B of the plaint. The Plaintiff''s father brought Title Suit No. 45 of 1933 in the Court of the Munsif, Sambalpur for declaration of title to and eviction of Ratan Luhura from the said rooms (vide Ext. E). The suit was compromised on 15-3-1934. According to the terms of compromise Ratan Luhura gave up possession of the rooms described in Schedule A but continued occupation of the room described in Schedule B of the plaint on condition of payment of an annual rent of Rs. 2,50 p. (Vide Ext. 3). There was a further clause that on his failure to pay the rent the Plaintiff''s father would be entitled to evict him through Court. Ratan continued to pay the rent as per the terms of compromise till 1952. After his death, the Defendants 1 to 3, while in occupation, far from paying rent, set up an adverse title and changed the structures by making some encroachments. Plaintiff started a proceeding under the Orissa House Rent Control Act for eviction of Defendants 1 to 3 and having failed to obtain relief from the House Rent Controller, commenced the present action.
Defendant No. 1 is the son of late Ratan Luhura. The widow of Ratan Luhura who was impleaded as Defendant No. 2 died during the pendency of this litigation. Defendant No. 3 is the wife Defendant No. 1. The defence contention was that Ratan Luhura had acquired non-evictable right to the property and his heirs have succeeded to the same right. It was alleged that the suit site originally belonged to one Harihar Pujari, the Shebait of the deity Budharanja who had settled the same with Ratan in 1924 and later his son Sambhunath ratified the same by executing a document in 1954. It was also contended that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The learned trial Judge came to the findings that the Defendants had no title as claimed and that they were monthly tenants in occupation of the suit premises and were liable to eviction under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. He accordingly passed a decree for their eviction, but did not allow the Plaintiff''s claim for damages. He directed the encroachments to be removed.
Defendants 1 to 3 appealed against the decree for eviction. Plaintiff filed a cross appeal against the dismissal of his claim of damages.- The learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, found that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such notice of six months was necessary for termination of the lease. He also held that the disputed property was an agricultural holding and, therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further held that the Defendants 1 to 3 had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. Accordingly, he reversed the decree for eviction, but upheld the direction for removal of the encroachments. The cross-appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the Plaintiff went up in second appeal which was allowed and the decision of the lower appellate Court was set aside. The case was remanded to the lower appellate Court for a fresh disposal with the direction to determine clearly as to whether the tenancy in question is one governed by the Orissa Land Reforms Act of 1960. It was observed that upon the lower appellate Court coming to hold that the tenancy was governed by the Orissa Land Reforms Act, it would follow that the civil Court has no jurisdiction; in case it was found that the tenancy was not governed by the Act, the civil Court would have jurisdiction and the case would be examined on merits by the lower appellate Court.
After remand, the learned Additional District Judge came to hold that Ratan Luhura was a village artisan and he had constructed the house on the suit premises with the permission of the landlord and hence the tenancy was governed by Section 10 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Upon such findings, he held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction of the Defendants as the matter is cognizable by a revenue Court. The findings of the lower appellate Court are assailed in this appeal.
It is urged on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant that in the absence of a finding that the Defendants were working as village artisans at the time when the Act came into force, the lower appellate Court should have held that they are not entitled to the benefits of Section 10 of the Act.
It is in evidence that Ratan Luhura died in 1954, that is, long prior to the coming into force of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. It is also in evidence that Defendant No. 1, the son of Ratan Luhura, has taken up Government service in the Commercial Tax Department. There is no evidence on the record to show that the Defendants were doing the work of village artisans at any time. The learned appellate Judge came to the finding that the Defendants did not work as village artisans at any time. He, however, repelled the contention that in order to attract the application of Section 10 of the Act, the person in possession must be working as a village artisan. According to him the section applies if the house was constructed by a village artisan, irrespective of the question whether or not he was doing the work of a village artisan by the time the Act came into force.
In order to consider the rival contentions of the patties, it would be necessary to set out the relevant provisions contained in Sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Section 10. Dwelling houses of agricultural labourers and artisans: The provisions of Section 9 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the dwelling houses constructed by agricultural labourers and village artisans and the sites on which such houses stand.
Explanation - If such labourer or artisan or his predecessors-in-interest had for the first time occupied the site in question when he was in the service of the person having permanent and heritable rights in the site and right to accord permission for the construction of the house, the fact of such occupation shall be conclusive proof that permission had in fact been so accorded.
The relevant provisions of Section 9 may now be extracted:
Section 9. Dwelling houses of raiyats and tenants:
(1) Every person who is a raiyat or a tenant in respect of any land but has no permanent and heritable rights in respect of any side on which his dwelling house or farm house stands, shall with effect from the commencement of this Act be deemed to be a raiyat in respect of the whole of such site or a portion thereof not exceeding one-fifth of an acre whichever is less if he or his predecessor-in-interest has.
(a) obtained permission, express or implied, from the person having permanent and heritable rights in the site and having right to accord permission for the construction of such house; and (b) built such house at his own expense.
Explanation - (i) (Omitted)
(ii) Lands to be held as a raiyat in pursuance of this Sub-section shall be so determined as to include, as far as practicable, tanks excavated and wells sunk by such person on the site and so as not to exceed in extent the limit specified in this Sub-section.
(iii) Trees standing on the land so determined shall belong to such person.
(iv) Right of way and other easementary rights necessary for the enjoyment of the aforesaid land shall attach thereto.
(1-A) The Revenue Officer, on an application made in this behalf by the person referred to in Sub-section (1), in the prescribed form and manner and within the prescribed period, may, after such inquiry as may be necessary, issue a certificate in the prescribed form to such person to the effect that he has become a raiyat in respect of the whole, or, as the case may be, a portion of the site as aforesaid and if such person is evicted from the site at any time after the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 (President''s Act 17 of 1973), the Revenue Officer shall, by order, direct that possession of the site be delivered to the said person and may take such further steps as he may consider necessary to give effect to the order so passed.
xx xx xx
Section 10 uses a familiar drafting device and to save repetition provides that the provisions of Section 9 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the dwelling houses constructed by agricultural labourers and the village artisans and the sites on which such houses stand. The expression ''mutatis mutandis'' means with the necessary changes in points of detail. So the provisions of Section 9 are to be adapted and applied to the dwelling houses of agricultural labourers and village artisans with modification and changes as if they are raiyats or tenants in respect of some land, but having no permanent and heritable rights in respect of the sites on which their dwelling houses stand. It will thus be seen that the requirements of Section 10 are firstly that the person in occupation of the homestead is an agricultural labourer or a village artisan at the time when the benefits of that section are sought and secondly that he has no permanent and heritable rights in respect of the site on which his dwelling house stands. It is the co-existence of these two elements that would attract the application of Section 10.
The golden rule of construction of statutes is that the words employed in any provision should be construed according to their plain, literal and grammatical meaning. The present tense used in the expression "every person who is a raiyat or a tenant in respect of any land but has no permanent and heritable rights" in Sub-section (1) of Section 9 indicates that the person claiming the benefits of Section 10 must fill the character of an agricultural labourer or a village artisan at the time when the Act came into force. The Legislature in enacting these provisions intend to confer rights of ownership by assuring security of occupation and fixity of rent on a person depending on art of agriculture so that he can conveniently carry on his avocation without let or hindrance. It would be against the spirit of the enactment to extend the benefits of Section 10 to a person who is neither an agricultural labourer nor a village artisan. The findings of fact are that Ratan Luhura died in the year 1954 and that the Defendants did not do the work of village artisans at any time. Evidently, therefore, Section 10 as it stands does not apply to them.
There is total lack of evidence on the record that Ratan Luhura was inducted on the land for rendering services to the landlord or that he constructed the house after obtaining permission of the landlord. As indicated earlier, he was in forcible occupation of the rooms described in Schedules A and B of the plaint and according to the terms of the compromise he vacated the rooms described in Schedule A and was allowed to continue occupation of the room described in Schedule B permanently on payment of an annual rent of Rs. 2. 50 (Vide Ext. 3); The evidence of the Plaintiff is that Ratan Luhura occupied the room on payment of rent for some years and for the rest of the years till 1952 he rendered service in lieu of payment of rent (vide para 14 of his deposition). He was entitled to continue occupation of the room as long as he paid the rent regularly. Under the terms of the compromise decree he was liable to eviction only on his failure to pay rent. It will thus be seen that security of tenure and fixity of rent had already been guaranteed under the terms of the compromise decree which was passed long prior to the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. One of the requirements of Section 10 is that the person in occupation must not have permanent and heritable rights in respect of the site on which the dwelling house stands. This requirement is not satisfied in the present case.
It was urged on behalf of the Defendants that since the house was constructed by their predecessor-in-interest, who was a village artisan, they are entitled to the protection u/s 10. There is no force in this contention. The expression "predecessor-in-interest" used in Section 9 of the Act was intended to mean only a person whose interest was identical with that of the successor. As already noted, the Defendants are not village artisans. After the death of Ratan Luhura they stopped payment of rent and set up a hostile title. In their joint written statement they did not claim the benefits of Section 10 but asserted hostile title to the land and the house standing thereon. There is also nothing on the record to show that they made any application to the Revenue Officer within the prescribed period for issue of a certificate to the effect that they had become raiyats in respect of the homestead as envisaged u/s 9(1-A) of the Act. There is also no material on the record to show that they made any application u/s 12 of the Act to the Revenue Officer for deciding the dispute relating to the rights conferred under Sections 9 and 10. The interest claimed by them is not the same as that of Ratan Luhura. They are, therefore, not entitled to the protection u/s 10 of the Act in any view of the matter.
In the premises aforesaid, I hold in disagreement with the lower appellate Court, that the tenancy in question is not governed by the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
16, The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed and the decision of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower appellate Court for a fresh disposal on merit after examination of the entire evidence on the record. Costs shall abide the result.
After remand the appeal shall stand transferred to the file of the District Judge, Sambalpur who is hereby directed to dispose of the same within three months hence under intimation to this Court. The lower Court records be returned forthwith.
Appeal allowed.