Rethinam and Others vs Kuppuswami Odayar

Ratnam, J.—The tenants are the petitioners in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of eviction passed by the

Revenue Court, Thanjavur, on an application filed by the respondent herein under S. 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection

Act, 25 of 1955, and Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1956. According to the case of the respondent, the father of the petitioners cultivated an extent of 1

acre and 69 cents of land belonging to the respondent, agreeing to measure 29 kalams in kuruvai and 27 kalams in Thaladi besides 10 bundles of

straw and two fifth share in the catch crop every year, being the fair rent fixed by the Revenue Court in P. R. No. 366 of 1979. The further case of

the respondent was that after the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners continued to hold over on the same terms and conditions, but

that the petitioners had left the lands fallow in fasli 1386 and 1387 and, therefore, they had rendered themselves liable to be evicted on the ground

that they had ceased to cultivate the land and that the petitioners were also guilty of acts injurious to the land.

This application was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that the second crop was not raised in one year as a notification was issued

by the Government that such crop should not be raised as the Government could not undertake the responsibility for the supply of water for

irrigation owing to failure of monsoon and other adverse seasonal conditions. As regards the other fasli, the petitioners stated that owing to

breaches which resulted in inundation of more than 60 to 70 acres in the village, the lands were rendered incapable of cultivation and, therefore, the

petitioners pleaded that due to reasons beyond their control, the lands could not be cultivated which could not be taken advantage of by the

respondent.

Before the Revenue Court, the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and relied upon Ex. P. 1, the entries in the Adangal for the relevant

faslis, namely, faslis 1386 and 1387. while the first petitioner examined himself and two others in support of his case. On a consideration of the

evidence, the Revenue Court held that the petitioners did not cultivate the double crop lands in question with two crops, but deliberately omitted to

raise the second crop in a large extent of the land with a view to cause loss to the respondent by falsely putting forth the Government notification as

well as the breach as the reasons therefor which were not substantiated. In addition, on the basis of the admission of the first petitioner that the

fertility of the soil will be impaired if there is an omission to raise two crops in a double crop land, the Revenue Court concluded that that omission

would be injurious to the land. On these conclusions, the Revenue Court passed an order evicting the petitioners from the holding. It is the

correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though the evidence in this case disclosed the non-raising of two crops in all the lands in

question, this would not fall within the expression ''has altogether ceased to cultivate the land''. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent would contend that the documentary evidence clearly discloses failure on the part of the petitioners to cultivate two crops and having

regard to the nature of the lands, the omission on the part of the petitioners to cultivate two crops would be included within the expression ''has

altogether ceased to cultivate the land''. u/s 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, before a landlord can secure an order

for eviction on the ground that the tenant has altogether ceased to cultivate the land, it is necessary that a total abandonment of cultivation by the

tenant should be established and the omission to cultivate one crop in the lands in question, as in this case, would not amount to ''altogether ceasing

to cultivate'' which would justify the passing of an order for eviction on this ground. The use of the word ''altogether'' in Action 3 (2) (b) of the

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, has a definite connotation in the sense of ''whole'' ''thoroughly'' ''completely'' or ''as a whole'', and

the cessation of cultivation contemplated must be a total and complete and for a definite period. The mere omission, as in the instant case, to raise

one crop would not, on the basis of the language employed in the section, be taken to include cessation of cultivation as envisaged in the statutory

provision. Under the circumstances, the respondent cannot take advantage of the omission on the part of the petitioners to raise one crop in a

double crop land as tantamount to cesser of cultivation which would justify the passing of an order for eviction against the petitioners.

However, the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that even so the admission of the petitioners, the omission to raise the second crop

in the lands in question would result in the lowering of the fertility as well as the productivity of the soil and that would be an act which would be

injurious to the land and, therefore, under the earlier part of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, the petitioners

are liable to be evicted. The first petitioner who has been examined as R. W. 1 has stated in the course of his cross examination that the tharam

(sic) of the double crop land would be adversely affected if the crops are not raised. His admission runs thus- (Not given - Ed.)

It is not in dispute that the lands in question are double crop land. Ex. P 1, discloses that only in respect of an extent of 87 cents in Survey No.

142/3, the petitioners have raised two crops during the faslis in question. If the case of the petitioners that there was a notification by the

Government that the second crop should not be raised and that owing to breaches the lands were rendered incapable of cultivation with the crops

is true, then it cannot be understood as to how the petitioners were able to raise two crops in only one item of land for both the faslis and not in all

the items. It is evident that the petitioners deliberately did not raise two crops in all the lands in question and having regard to the admission of the

first petitioner referred to above that such non-cultivation of two crops is injurious to the land, the Revenue Court was justified in ordering the

eviction of the petitioners. Indeed, in Sattayappa Thevar v. Sambandam Thevar, 1973 TL NJ 14, it has been held that it could be inferred that the

value of the land would be adversely affected if only a single crop is cultivated in a double crop land and that in this view there will be an injury to

the land value and the injury to the land value be injurious to the land itself which would justify an order for eviction. Under the abovesaid

circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court cannot be taken exception to. The result is the civil revision petition fails and is

dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.