Hidayathulla vs Balasubramaniam

Ratnavel Pandian, J.—The landlord in Fair Rent Petition No. 95 of 1973 on the file of the Conciliation Officer (Rent Court) Mayuram has directed this revision against the judgment made in R. T. A. No. 30 of 1974 on the file of the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif) Sir Kali. The facts of the case which led to this revision are as follows:-The tenant respondent herein filed a petition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, for fixation of fair rent in respect of the land shown in the petition, namely 5.60 acres cultivation by him in Patharakudi Village, Sir kali Taluk. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the petitioner herein. The Landlord resisted the above claim of the respondent-tenant on the grounds (i) that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joiner of parties; (ii) that the tenant-respondent is not entitled to the benefits of the Act as he was in possession and enjoyment of a total extent of 8.07 acres of land on the crucial date; and (iii) that the tenant is raising double crop in certain extent of lands contrary to the terms of the lease. Before the Rent Court three witnesses were examined on the side of the tenant and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 was marked. On the landlord''s side three witnesses R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. R. 1 to R. 4 was marked. The Rent Court, on a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and on an examination of the question as to whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the Act 24 of 1956, found as follows:

Taking into consideration of the above points, it has been sufficiently established that the petitioner''s father Rajangam has cultivated more than one veli of land on the crucial date, i.e. 31st March, 1957 and the suit lands were inherited by the petitioner only as legal heir to his father. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Act 24 of 1956.

On the above observations, the Rent Court dismissed the application; but on appeal by the tenant, the Rent Tribunal, placing reliance on Exs. B6 and B7, was not inclined to believe the contention of the landlord that the said Rajangam (the prevent tenant''s father) was cultivating more than one veli of land even after the crucial period. Consequent to that, he allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Rent Court and remanded the matter to the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent. Hence this revision by the landlord.

Mr. K. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner herein would attack the finding of the Tribunal below on the ground that the Tribunal below has erroneously found that Exs. B6 and B7 proved that the father of the present tenant had relinquished the excess lands even on the expiry of the fasli year 1366, i.e. the period commencing from 1st July, 1956 and ending with 30th June, 1957. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the entry in the adangal register that Rajangam was the cultivating tenant of the lands up to 30th August, 1957 will not clothe the present tenant with any right to claim the benefits of the Act, because that entry reveals that Rajangam continued to be in possession of the said land in excess of one veli even after 30th March, 1957.

This argument was countered by Mr. R. Shanmugam, who would state that it is the usual practice in the village that the village officials for the purpose of record, enter the name of the tenant in the adangal register at the end of the fasli year, though in practice a tenant surrenders possession of the land as soon as the harvest is over, i.e., during or by the end of March of every year and, therefore, from the mere entry made by the village officials it cannot be construed that Rajangam continued to be in possession of the property as a tenant till 30th June, 1957.

As one having sufficient experience in the affairs of this State, I feel that the contention of Mr. Shanmugham cannot be easily brushed aside. Coming to Exs. B6 and B7, of course, these two documents have been marked with the consent of both the parties. But, it has to be noted that in column 6 (a) in Exs. B6 and B7 wherein the village officials were expected to mention the name of the tenant, no entries were made and they have been conspicuously omitted. I do not see any reason for the said omission. If we examine the entries in Ex. B5. with the entries made in Exs. B6 and B7, we can find out that this column was omitted to be entered in the subsequent documents, namely, Exs. B6 and B7 which were made with reference to fasli years 1367 and 1368. The Tribunal below has not adverted to this aspect of the ease and thereby the Tribunal has overlooked to consider the material portion of the evidence as borne out by the documents.

The main contention of Mr. Chandramouli is that a tenant will be entitled to the benefits of S. 14of the Act subject to the condition that the tenant relinquished at the end of the agricultural year ending with 1957 the tenancy in respect of such portion of the land as might be necessary to entitle him to all the benefits of a cultivating tenant under the Act. S. 2 (a)defines ''agricultural year'' as the year commencing on the 1st day of April, or, in respect of the whole or any part of any district on such other date as the Collector of the district may specify in that behalf by notification in the District Gazette. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence about the period of agricultural year in the District of Thanjavur as might have been specified by the Collector of the District by notification in the District Gazette. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence we have to take that ''agricultural year'' means the year commencing from 1st April and ending with the 31st of March of the succeeding year. There cannot be any dispute that the father of the present tenant Rajangam had been in possession of lands measuring more than one veli. Under this Act, a cultivating tenant will not be entitled to the benefits of this section if he bad not surrendered the portion of land held by him in excess of one veli. A cultivating tenant as defined under this Act is any person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any sued person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement and the heir of such person if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land. Admittedly, the present tenant steps into the shoes of his father Rajangam as his heir and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefits of the Act only if his father had fulfilled the statutory condition provided for in S. 14, namely, his father had relinquished or surrendered the excess portion of the land over and above one veli. The case of the tenant is that Rajangam had surrendered the lauds even before the commencement of fasli year 1367. Of course, the landlord would state that there was no such surrender. In order to settle such dispute, the Act itself has provided that the tenant must relinquish that portion of the land which is in excess of one veli to the landowner by a notice in writing addressed to him. Mr. Chandramouli would very much rely on this condition imposed by S. 14of the Act and contend that in as much as the tenant had not relinquished or surrendered the excess portion of the land by notice in writing addressed to the land owner, namely Sir kali Pallivasal, under which Rajangam was a tenant in respect of 1.43 acres he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. Admittedly, Rajangam was a cultivating tenant in respect of 5.60 acres of land mentioned in the petition. If the extent of the land belonging to Pallivasal, namely 1.43 acres is added to 5.60 acres, the total would come to 7.03 acres. Therefore, if it is found that Rajangam was in possession of 7.03 acres of land as a cultivating tenant under the landlords, he would not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. Therefore, the question is whether Rajangam has surrendered 1.43 acres of land belonging to Pallivasal as put forth by his son, the present tenant. No nonce addressed to the landlord, namely Pallivasal is marked in this case. Mr. Shanmugam, counsel for the tenant, would submit that the landlord is not entitled to raise that question now, since he had not raised specifically in the counter any contention that Rajangam had not surrendered the excess land in writing. Of course, in the counter, the landlord had not stated in so many words that Rajangam had not surrendered the land in writing. But, in paragraph 3 of his counter, the landlord would make an emphatic statement that the tenants father Rajangam was cultivating the petition mentioned lands (5.60 acres) and one acre, belonging to the landlord''s brother and another 1.47 acres (mistake for 1.43 acres) of land bejraging to Sirkali Pallivasal, i.e. 8.07 acres in total, on the crucial date and by reason of the same the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of the Act and that the petition filed by the tenant is liable to be dismissed on that sole ground, A plain reading of paragraph 3 of the counter would make it abundantly clear that the landlord raised a point that the tenant was not entitled to the benefits of the Act by virtue of S.14of the Act. In fact, before both the authorities below, both the parties but forth their respective claims and counter claims only on the basis of the question as to whether the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of the Act by virtue of S. 14of the Act. The order of the Rent Court shows that it took up this point as a preliminary point and decided that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of the Act, as on the crucial date, i.e., 31st March, 1957 the tenant''s father Rajangam had cultivated more than one veli of land. Before the Tribunal below, both parties fought only on this point. Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Tribunal below reveals that the Tribunal below took up for its consideration the only question whether the appellant (the tenant) is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1956. Therefore, when both the parties have understood the point, namely, whether the tenant would be entitled to the benefits of Act 24 of 1956, and fought over the matter for a considerable length of time before both the authorities below, there cannot be any useful purpose now in contending that the landlord has not specifically raised that point that the tenant has not surrendered or relinquished that portion of the land in excess of one veli in writing. In my ''view, it is for the tenant to prove his case of surrender or relinquishment in compliance with the spirit and intendment of S. 14of the Act.

The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others, , has observed:

Where a power is given to do a certain thing is a certain way, the thing must be done In that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rile squarely applies where the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other.

Maxwell in his "Interpretation of Statutes" (12th Edition) at page 315, would observe as follows:

Where the whole aim and object of the Legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition on doing it in any other, no doubt can be entertained as to the intention.

In ''Principles of Statutory Interpretation'', (2nd Edition) at page 231, under the heading ''Statutes Conferring Power'', Mr. G. P. Singh observes as follows :

In statutes conferring a power to be exercised on certain conditions, the conditions prescribed are normally held to be mandatory, and a power inconsistent with those conditions is impliedly negative.

As stated already, S. 14of the Act imposes a condition on the tenant to relinquish the land held by him in excess of one veli and such relinquishment roust be by a notice in writing addressed to the land owner. This condition has become a necessary and requisite one in view of sub S.(1) of S. 14which says:

(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or as owner or as both, an extent of land in excess of one veli (6-2/3 acres of wet land).

Hence the requisite condition should be fulfilled before anyone claims the benefits of the Act. The onus of proving that the land held in excess of one veli has been relinquished rests on the tenant who claims the benefits of the Act. If once the tenant fails to satisfy the Court about the fulfillment of the condition and if the landlord proves that the tenant was holding more than one veli, the tenant will not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent tenant that the landlord has not specifically raised that question of surrender cannot be accepted. In the absence of any evidence that the tenant has relinquished the land in excess of one veli held by him during the agricultural year 1957 I have no other option except to restore the judgment of the Rent Court. For the above stated reasons, I set aside the judgment of the Tribunal below and restore the order of the Rent Court, holding that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.