Kunchitapadam Pillai vs Ranganadha Pillai

Balakrishna Ayyar, J.—In order to qualify at a ""cultivating tenant"" within the meaning of S. 2 (a) of the Madras Act XXV of 1955, it is not

necessary that a. poison should put hit own muscular effort into the soil. It is not necessary that he himself should plough the field or irrigate it or

weed it or harvest it or thrash the grain that the field may yield. It is sufficient if the land is cultivated under his direct supervision and if farther he

assumes the risks of the cultivation If he can decide what crops he would grow, when he would grow them and where he would grow them if he

can direct what labor should be employed and when and where and for what purposes, if he can decide what fertilizer he would use and in what

proportions, if he cap decide and direct when the field should be harvested and how the harvest should be disposed of-if he has direct control over

such operations and if further he is not the paid agent in this respect of some one else he would be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the

Act. The contention of the respondent that as he does not contribute his physical labor to the cultivation he is not a cultivating tenant, must fail. The

next contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the sale in favour of the respondent till November 1956 is demonstrated to be false by

Ext. P. 2 to P. 6. The final contention that then was no apportionment of the rent must also be negative in view of the evidence of P. W. 2.

This petition is dismissed with costs. Time to pay arrears of rent two weeks from today.