R. Sellamuthu Chettiar vs Veerasikkiah Gounder

Ramachandra Iyer, J.—The landlord of certain wet lands in Pallankulam village in Madurai district is the petitioner. C.R.P. No. 761 of 1957 arises against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampattis directing restoration of possession to the respondent under S. 4 (5) of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 as amended by the Madras Act XIV of 1956. The petitioner purchased the properties in dispute and certain other properties on 26th May, 1954 from one P.T.V. Nath and others. The respondent was a tenant under the original owner of the lands. After the execution of the sale deed there were some disputes between the vendor and the vendee as a result of which O.S. No.1 of 1955 came to be filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul by the present petitioner for possession and certain other relief''s. The respondent who was a tenant of the former landlord was also impleaded as a party. Possession was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 23rd August, 1956, and it is to be noted that the decree in the suit was passed after the coming into force of the Madras Act XXV of 1955. There was, however, no plea by the respondent herein in the suit that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the said Act. The petitioner thereupon filed E.P. No. 179 of 1956 for executing the decree for possession, and possession was delivered to him by Court on 14th September, 1956. An application was thereafter filed by the respondent in the executing Court itself lor redelivery pleading that he was entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act XXV of 1955. The executing Court ordered redelivery but the same was set aside by the District Court, Madurai, in A.S. No. 205 of 1956. While the application for redelivery at the instance of the respondent was pending in the executing Court, he applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti in M.T.P. No. 50 of 1956 for restoration of possession on the ground that he was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act and that he had been wrongfully dispossessed in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1955. On 17th January 1957 the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed this application for restoration of possession of the land except in regard to a portion of the lands that were sublet to one Sannasi Gounder. This order was passed after the order of the executing Court directing redelivery in the respondent''s application and before the order of the appellate Court in A.S. No. 205 of 1956. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Madras Act XXV of 1955 and directed restoration of possession. C.R.P. No. 761 of 1957 is filed against this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. After the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in M.T.P. No. 50 of 1956, the petitioner filed M.T.P. No. 1 of 1957, praying that two acres out of the lands which were directed to be delivered back to the respondent should be excluded from the order as the respondent was not in possession actually but had sub-let that portion to one Ramaswami Gounder and three others. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that the (sic) of the respondent was only to have the order in M.T.P. No. 50 of 1956 revised by the High Court and that be could not afford say relief in M.T.P. No. 1 of 1957. In that view the dismissed M.T.P. No. 1957 C.R.P. No. 740 of 1957 is filed against this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Mr. Natesan appearing for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions argued firstly that the respondent was not a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 and secondly that the said Act having come into operation during the pendency of O. S. No. 7 of 1955 the respondent ought to have raised the plea that he was entitled to protection under the said Act in the suit itself, and he not having done so is precluded from going behind the decree for possession and the orders in execution proceedings in pursuance of that decree. I am not impressed with the second contention. S. 4 (5) of the Act as amended by the Madras Act XIV of 1956 runs as follows:

Any cultivating tenant who after the commencement of this Act has been evicted except under the provisions of Sub-S. (4) of S. 3 shall be entitled to apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer within two months from the date of such eviction or within two months from the date of coming into force of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, for the restoration to him of the possession of the lands from which he was evicted and to hold them......

This section would apply even if the tenant has been evicted under a decree of a Court. I am therefore unable to accept this contention on behalf of the petitioner. To appreciate the first contention it is necessary to state a few facts. There is evidence to show that after his purchase on 25th June 1954 the petitioner requested the respondent to attorn to him and also asked for the execution of a lease deed in his favour. The respondent refused to comply with the request of the petitioner but on the other hand sided with the vendor in contesting the petitioner''s title. There has been no fresh agreement with the landlord and it cannot be said that there was any express or implied agreement by the respondent with the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not given sufficient rear sons for holding that the respondent was a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act. He merely stated that the respondent was a tenant under the previous landlord and he continued to be in possession of the land during the pendency of the suit and paid the lease amount into Court. These facts cannot by themselves make the respondent a cultivating tenant as there is no agreement express or implied with the petitioner but there was a repudiation of the title of the petitioner in O.S. No. 7 of 1955. The conduct of the respondent in supporting the vendor in denying the title of the petitioner would certainly negative that he was a tenant under the petitioner either expressly or by implication. However, as the Revenue Divisional Officer has not given a clear finding on the question I think it is necessary in fairness to all the parties that the matter should be investigated once again by him. The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer are set aside and the matter is remanded for disposal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti afresh in accordance with law. The Revenue Divisional Officer will also consider the objection of the landlord in M.T.P. No. 1 of 1957 and ascertain the extent of land in possession and actual cultivation of the respondent in case he comes to the conclusion that he is entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act XXV of 1955. There will be no order as to costs in these civil revision petitions.