Meria Sabastian vs Sunder Jesudian

Ganapatia Pillai, J.—The short point for determination in this second appeal is whether a tenant in possession of land for non-agricultural

purposes is entitled to claim compensation for improvements effected to the land after notice to quit was given. If the Transfer of Property Act

applies to the lease in question Mr. Ramachandran learned Counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that no such improvement could be valued

and the landlord could not be called upon to pay for such improvements. He also concedes that the Travancore Cochin Compensation for

Tenants'' Improvements Act, 1956, would not apply to the case. But he relies upon the analogy of Cl. 3 of S. 5 of that Act which provides that a

cultivator making improvements even after a decree for eviction is passed against him is entitled to be paid the value of the improvement before he

is evicted. I do not agree that the provisions of that Act (Act X of 1956) noticed above would have any application to the tenancy in the present

case as the Act in question was solely intended for the benefit of persons who cultivate lands for agricultural purposes. Mr. Ramachandran then

argued that it was conceded by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the tenant should be paid the value of improvements effected by him before the

eviction of the tenant could be ordered in the case of non-agricultural leases also, and he relied upon this admission of the Counsel for the plaintiff

to show that once improvements have to be paid for, there was no limit of time beyond which the tenant would be barred from making

improvements. I am unable to see the principle behind this argument. Notice to quit may not be necessary in cases of this kind but that is not the

point. The special concession given to the cultivators under the Travancore Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 1956 (Act X of

1956) was in pursuance of the high policy of the Government to increase food production and to better the condition of the cultivators of the soil.

A provision found in that Act could never apply to merchants like the appellant before me who has taken the lease of the land for the purpose of

carrying on the manufacture of furniture. Notice to quit determines the status of the tenant as tenant. From that date anything that he does on the

land should not be a source of burden on the landlord and act as a restraint upon the right of the landlord to resume possession. That is the basic

qualification under which alone right to compensation can be claimed by a non-agriculturist tenant. I find no allegation in the plaint that there is any

custom overriding this basic principle and in the absence of any such admission that lower Courts were right in declining to grant compensation to

the appellant for the improvements stated to have been effected by him after notice to quit was given by the landlord. The second appeal is

therefore dismissed.