AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujam, J.—The substantial question of law that arises in this Writ petition is as to whether a sub-tenant can claim protection of the
Tamil Nadu Act X of 1969 after the tenancy between his lessor and the owner of the land had come to an end.
The Petitioner herein is the owner of Survey field No. 219/1-A of Kurichi Village in Coimbatore Taluk. Originally the land was leased out by the
owner to one Velappa Konar and Velappa Konar had sub-let the entire land to the fourth Respondent. The fourth Respondent has been cultivating
the lands by contributing his own physical labour. Subsequently Velappa Konar died. After the Record of Tenancy Act of 1969 came into force,
originally the name of Velappa Konar was shown as a tenant under the Record of Tenancy. Subsequently, after the death of Velappa Konar, his
son Ramaswami Konar was shown as a tenant. The fourth Respondent claiming to be a sub-tenant in actual cultivation of the land as a sub-lessee
applied for deletion of Ramaswami Konar''s name from the record and for substitution of his name in its place. Though the Record Officer after
conducting an enquiry found that the fourth Respondent was a sub-tenant actually cultivating the lands by his own physical labour, he held that the
fourth Respondent cannot be treated as a cultivating tenant after the lease in favour of Velappa Kunar has come to an end on his death, in view of
the decision of a Bench of this Court in Kathaperumal v. Muthayya ILR (1964) Mad 320. Thus the fourth Respondent''s claim for inclusion of his
name as a cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy was rejected by the record Officer.
The fourth Respondent filed an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. There the fourth Respondent''s claim that he as a sub-lessee will come
under the definition of cultivating tenant in the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act was accepted, and he was directed to be recorded as a cultivating
tenant in respect of the land. The matter was taken in revision to the District Revenue Officer by the Petitioner, but without success. Thereafter the
Petitioner, has approached this Court questioning the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer as affirmed by the District Revenue Officer.
As already stated, the view taken by the Record Officer is that though the fourth Respondent can claim to be a cultivating tenant so long as the
lease between the owner and his lessor continues, he cannot come under the definition of cultivating tenant after the period of lease between the
owner and his lessor had expired. This view was based on the decision of this Court in Kathaperumal v. Muthiah ILR (1964) 1 Mad. 320. But the
appellate authority has taken the view that the definition of cultivating tenant in Section 2(aa) has been amended by Madras Act IX of 1969, that as
per the amended definition the sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person, who sub-let the land to such
sub-tenant, ceases to have the right to possession of such land will come under the definition of cultivating tenant that the explanation also creates a
direct relationship between the sub-tenant and the landlord if the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the tenant of such landlord, and that,
therefore, the fourth Respondent in this case will have to be taken as a cultivating tenant even though his lessor has ceased to be a tenant of the
landlord. The question is whether the view taken by the appellate authority could be sustained in law.
(5) In Ganapathi v. Ayyakannu ILR (1961) Mad. 452, a Bench of this Court held that the definition of the term cultivating tenant does not include
the assignees of a cultivating tenant. Subsequently in Kathaperumal v. Muthiah ILR (1964) 1 Mad. 320, another Division Bench expressed, (at
page 324).
It is well settled that there is neither privity of estate, nor privity of contract between the head lessor and the sub-lessee and that, therefore, the sub-
lessee will not be liable for rent or nor on any covenants in respect of the lease granted by the head lessor to the Chief tenant. But ordinarily
speaking-the Chief tenant stands in the same relationship to the subtenant as his own landlord stands towards him. For example, a sub-tenant will
be stopped from denying the title of his landlord, namely, the Chief tenant to grant the sub-tenancy, just in the same way as the chief tenant will be
precluded from denying title of the head lessor at the time of the grant of the lease. The head lessor''s right will not be affected by the sub-lease,
sub-tenant''s right will therefore, stand or fail with the right of the main tenant. For example, if the main lease comes to an end either by efflux of
time or by forfeiture, then the sub-lessee will lose his right to possession as well. But the case will perhaps be different where the head lessee
voluntarily surrenders in favour of his landlord in derogation of the rights granted by him to the sub-lessee. But so long as the main lease is
subsisting the sub-tenant will have all rights secured to him under his contract with his own lessor as well as those rights which a statute might give
him as against the lessor. For example, if a main tenant obtains a lease from the head lessor for a term of ten years and he lets into possession of
the Land a cultivating tenant for a period of one year, such sub-lessee would be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act and be entitled to
all the privileges, for the duration of his lessor''s title.
It is this latter decision which has been referred to and followed by the Record Officer.
However, it is seen that, that decision was rendered with reference to the definition of cultivation tenant u/s 2(a) which was as follows:
Cultivating tenant"" in relation to any land means a person, who carries on personal cultivation on such land, under a tenancy agreement, express or
implied.
Subsequent to the said decision by Amending Act IX of 1969 the definition of cultivating tenant has been widened so as to include a sub-tenant,
Section 2(aa) defines a cultivating tenant and Clause (c) of that definition includes a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of
any member of his family in the cultivation of such land. Clause (d) includes any subtenant, who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding
that the persons, who sub-let the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land. The explanation given under the
definition of cultivating tenant states that a sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a cultivating tenant of the holding under the landlord, if the lessor of
such sub-tenant has ceased to be the tenant of such landlord. These provisions make it abundantly clear that a sub-tenant will be a cultivating
tenant even though his lessor has ceased to be the tenant of the landlord.
The scope of the amended definition came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Chndrasekaran v. Kunju ILR (1975) 2
Mad. 169 (F.B.) a wherein the Full Bench has observed that the decision in Ganapathi v. Ayyakannu ILR (1961) Mad. 452 is no longer good law
and that on a proper interpretation of the definition of cultivating tenant it should be taken that a sub-tenant is statutorily treated as a cultivating
tenant notwithstanding the fact that the lease granted by the landlord in favour of his lessee has come to an end. According to the Full Bench the
statute gives the sub-lessee a protection, if the sub-lessee continues in possession, that the theory that the lessor cannot confer a higher title than he
himself possesses will not apply in view of the statutory definition of cultivating tenant which includes sub-tenant who continues to be in possession
after the tenancy agreement originally entered into by the landlord with his lessor stands terminated.
In this case, as already stated, the Record Officer relied on the judgment of this Court in Kathaperumal v. Muthiah ILR (1964) 1 Mad. 320,
while the appellate authority relied presumably on the amended definition which specifically includes a sub-tenant. The view taken by the appellate
authority is in my view quite in accord with the amended definition of cultivating tenant as also the decision of the Full Bench as referred to above.
In this case the fact that the fourth Respondent was cultivating the land when Velappa Konar died is not in dispute. According to the fourth
Respondent he became a sub-tenant under Velappa Konar. Velappa Konar''s son Ramaswami Konar has also given evidence before the Record
Officer that the fourth Respondent had been inducted as a sub-tenant by his father Velappa Konar and that he continues to cultivate the land in that
capacity. Therefore, there is abundant material to indicate that the fourth Respondent was inducted by Velappa Konar as a sub-tenant to cultivate
the lands. Even assuming that the lease in favour of Velappa Konar stood terminated on his death, the fourth Respondent will still be a cultivating
tenant in view of the explanation to Section 2(aa) . The reasoning given in the decision in Kathaperumal v. Muthiah ILR (1964) Mad. 320, that a
person cannot confer a higher right than what he, himself possessed cannot apply in view of the amended definition. Therefore, notwithstanding the
fact that the original tenancy in favour of Velappa Konar stands terminated, the statutory rights conferred on the fourth Respondent, the sub-tenant
will entitle him to the protection of the Act and the fourth Respondent will continue to be governed by the definition of cultivating tenant. The
definition of cultivating tenant under Act XXV of 1955 stands attracted by the provisions of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969. In this view
the order of the appellate authority as confirmed by the revisional authority holding the fourth Respondent to be a cultivating tenant should be
upheld. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.