G. PONNIAH TREVAR v. NELLAYAM PERUMAL PILLAI AND OTHERS December 15, 1976 (A. N. RAY, C.J. M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, s. 2(e) "Landlord", whe- t~er relates only Ir;> creator of lease-Section 3 ( 1) whether protects tenancy rzghts created by /lie-estate holder ;extending beyond his life-time-Provisions ot Act, whether prospective.
T~e plaintiffs-respondents· who became owners of the land in dispute, as. remainder-men, sned to evict the appellant, a cultivating tenant, on the ground that his tenancy rights created by Annamalai Ammal, a life-estate holder hact ceased with her death. The appellant claimed protection under s. 3 ( 1) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The respondents contended that such protection was only available against the creator of a lease, to persons who were cultivating tenants in 1955 when the Act came into force, and not ti> the appellant who became a cultivating tenant in 1961. The eviction-suit was. decreed by the District Court and the High Court.
Allowin~ the appeal, the Court, HELD : ( 1) The statutory definition of the term "tandlord" relates not only to· the person who created the lease but contemplates and takes in every succes- sive holder who could be entitled to evict a tenant.
That person can only be one who has the right, at the time of filing the suit, to realise rents or evict persons in wrongful occupation. [4490-H] (2) The terms of the statutory protection apply to all tenancie11 govern- ed by the Act irrespective of the nature of rights of the person who leased the · land ~o long as the lessor was entitled to create a tenancy. [447E] The Court observed-
The Madras High Court's view that a life estate holder cannot create a tenancy which could last beyond his life-time, applied to statutory tenancies runs counter not only to the principles underlying creation of statutory tenancy rights in agricultural land, through out the country, but is in conflict with tht: particular statutory protection conferred upon cultivating tenants in the State of Madras. [447E-F]
(3) The provisions of the Act are prospective· except for section 4(1) and even s. 4 (1) shows that the protection was not meant merely for those who were cultivating tenants in 1.955. The provisions became enforceable as soon as the Act became operative and there is nothing in the Act to show that it ceased to be operative at any time or was limited in its operation only as a
protection given to persons who were cultivating tenants in 1955. [450B-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1976, (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29-1-1976 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 468/75). K. S. Ramamurthi and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and Miss Veena Devi Khanna, for respondents Nos. 2-4.
,J G. PONNIAH TREVAR v. N. P. PILLAI (Beg, J.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J.-This appeal by special leave raises quite a .simple question of interpretation of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'th~ Act'), wh~ch, we think, have been ignored entirely by the Madras High Court m the judgment under appeal.
The undisputed facts :.re : one Annamalai Pillai died leaving behind two widows, namely, Annamalai Ammal and Veerayee. The last. m~n tioned lady instituted a suit No. 482 of 1927 in the Court of the D1stnct Munsif, Periyakulam, for partitioning the properties of the deceased: impleading the other widow and a nephew of the d~ceased Annam2h! Pillai as defendants. That suit ended in a compromise dated 6th July, 1935. Under the terms of the compromise decree, some land was given to Annamalai Ammal for enjoyment during her life time, and, thereafter, absolutely to the sons of the second defendant of suit No. 482 of 19~7. Annamalai Ammal died on 26th July, 1968. She had, however, dunng her life time, inducted a tenant, G. Ponniah Thevar, the appellant before us, by means of a lease dated 27th March, 1961. After the death of Annamalai Ammal, the plaintiffs-respondents, as remainder-men, sued to evict the appellant, the cultivating tenant, on the ground that his tenancy rights did not eirnre beyond the life time of Annamalai Ammal. The suit for eviction, decreed by the District Court and the High · Court, is now before us. It is n©t disputed that the provisions of the Act conferring protection upon cultivating tenants govern the rights of the appellant. We are, therefore, not concerned with any rights under any general or personal law which may enable the remainder .. men to evict a tenant of a life estate holder.
The terms of the statutory pro- tection apply clearly to all tenancies governed by the Act irrespective of the nature of rights of the person who leased the land so long as the lessor was entitled to create a tenancy.
It is not disputed before us that Annamalai Ammal was entitled to create a tenancy. The only question, on which there is a dispute, is whether a tenancy created by her could legally extend beyond her life. The Madras High Court had, apparently, followed certain decisions of that Court which had ripplied the principle that a life estate holder cannot create a tenancy which could last bey9nd the life of a life-estate holder. The view taken by the Madras High Court and applied to statutory tenancies runs counter not only to the principles underlying creation of statutory tenancy rights in agricultural land, throughout the length and breadth of the country, but, it seems to us to be obviously in conflict with the particular· statu- tory protection conferred upon cultivatfog tenants in the State of Madras. These enactments are really meant for the purposes proclaimed by them. The obvious effect of such statutorv provisions cannot be taken away or whittled down by forensic sophistry. Courts should not allow themselves to become tools for defeating clearly expressed statu- tory intentions.
Section 2(aa) of the Act lays down : "2(aa) 'cultivating tenant' in relation to any land- (1) means a person who carried on personal cultivation on such land, under a tenancy agreement, express or im-
plied, and c 'E lH ·448 [ 1977) 2 S.C.R. (2) includes- (i) any .such l?erson as !s referred to in sub-clause (1) who contmues m possession of the land after the determina- tion of the tenancy agreement,
(ii) in the district of Tiruchirappalli, a Kaiaeruvaramdar or a muttuva!amdar who works on the land under an engage- ment with the landlord for remuneration by a share in the crop in respect of which the work is done, and
(iii) the heirs of any such person as is referred to in sub- clause (1) or sub-clause. (2) (i) and '(ii) : but docs not include a mere intermediary or his heirs. Explanation.-A sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a culti-
vating tenant of the holding under the landlord if the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the tenant of such landlord;" Section 3 ( 1) of the Act lays down : "3 ( 1) Subject to the next succeeding sub-sections, no cul- tivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof, by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in exe- cution ofa decree or order of a Court or otherwise".
Section 3 (2) deals with the exceptional circumstances, such as default in payment of rent, in which the statutory protection is lifted. Section 3 ( 3) relates to other matters with which also we are not concerned here. Section 3 ( 4) lays down the procedure for the eviction of tenants in those cases in which the statutory protection is removed. It runs as follows:
"4(a) Every fandlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant falling under sub-section (2) shall, whether or not there is an order or decree of a Court for the eviction of such cultivating tenant, make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer and such application shall bear a Court-fee stamp of one
rupee. (b) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Divi- sional Officer shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their represen- tations, hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it and in a c:ase falling under clause (a) or clause ( aa) of sub-section ( 2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contain- ed in sub-section (3), the Revenue Divisional Officer may
allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and. reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct. If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as
directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under sub- section ( 3) (b). If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the ·v- i .Y G. PONNIAH TREVAR Ji. N. p'. PILLAI (Beg, J.)
sum as directed the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass au order for eviction" . . Thus, we see that the statutory protection from ·eviction, in this exhaustively comprehensive self contained pro~ed~re, may . la.st even after the landlord has filed the prescnbed application for eviction, ,after an accrual of his cause of action.
Section 2 ( e) defoies the landlord as follows : "2 ( e) 'landlord' in relation to a holding or part thereof means the person entitled to evict the cuitivating tenant from such holding or part;"
The plaintiffs respondents, on their own ;howing, are landlords as <lefined by the Act because they claimed, as the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents admitted, to be able to evict the appellant. There is no doubt whatsoever that the appellant was the lessee whose right to cultivate as a tenant had not been determined by anything in the lease or nnder any statutory provision. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed oat that, even if there had 1.Jeen a aetermination of the tenancy under a lease, the appellant would still be a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act because of the provisions of Section 2(aa) (2) (i) of the Act. Apparently, such a statutory definition of a culti- vating tenant and an exhaustive procedure for his eviction in certain cases only and in no other case, are there so as to carry out the purpose :stated in the preamble as follows :
"Whereas it is necessary to protect cultivating tenants in 'Certain areas in the State of Madras from unjust eviction". The plaintiffs ·landlords could be entitled to resume land only under -section 4(A) of the Act added by the Madras Cultivating Tenants Pro- tectiot1 (Amendment) Act of 1956, for purposes of personal cultivation in the manner laid down in the Act itself.
The tenant could ah;o be evicted for arrears of rent as provided in Section 3 (2) of the Act, be- cause, in that case, the protection given by Section 3 (1) would not apply. But, none of the conditions for eviction is fulfilled in the case before us. Moreover, the procedure for eviction is a speciul procedure provided by Section 3 ( 4) of the Act by proceedings in the Court of the :Revenue Divisional Officer.
Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent had tried to advance two contentions in support of the view taken by the High Court. Firstly, he submits that the protection given under Section 3 ( 1) was for the landlord of the cultivating. tenant. In view of the statutory definition of . the term "landlord", we think that the suit itself would fail if the plain- tiffs were not landlords. The statutory definition of the term landlord relates not only to the person who created the lease but contemplates and takes in every successive holder who could be entitled to evict a tenant. That person can only be one who has the right, at the time of filin¥ the s~it, t? realise re~ts or evict persons in wrongful occupation. There .1s nothmg m the Act itself to show that the protection given to c
c SUP~EME COU~T ~EPOUS (1977] 2 S.C.R~ the cultivatin~ tenant, as defined in the Act, wits given onJy against his; original lessor and did not extend to subsequent holders of land occupy- ing the capacity of the landlord. Secondly, it was urged that the pro- tection was given only to those persons who were cultivating tenants in ,J
1955 when the Act came into force. The argument has only to be– stated to be rejected. There is not a scintilla of indication in the pro- visions of the Act to support such an impossible interpretation. The
provisions of the Act are clearly prospective except for the provisions of Section 4 ( 1) of the Act, showing that even a person who was a culti- vating tenant of any land on 1st December, 1933. but is "not in pos- session thereof at the commencement of the Act'' could be tre<:1ted as. if he was in possession of the fand on 1st December,
1953. Even ,….__' '. Section 4 ( 1) of the Act shows that the protection was not meant merely for those who were cultivating tenants in 1955. Provisions of the Act show that they became enforceable as soon as the Act became opera- tive. There is nothing whatsoever in the Act to show that it ceased to· be operative at any time or was limited in its operation only as a pro- tection given to persons who were cultivating tenants in 1955. Hence, we are unable to see any reason whatsoever for denying the appellant the clearly intended protection conferred upon cultivating tenants, as defined in the Act, by the provisions of the Act set out above. Our attention has been invited to some cases which relate to the– applicability of Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is. true that this provision has been applied to tenancies created under . various statutory provisions regulating the rights of tenants to agricul- tural fands in States all over India. Bu,t, we are not concerne<J here with a case in which the position of the alleged lessee is struck by Sec- tion 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Such alleged lessees are not tenants at all at the time when they are inducted on the land as tenants whatever else they may be. We, therefore, need not even refer to the cases cited before us which relate either to this provision of law or to enactments of other States.
Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court. But, in the circumstances of the case the· parties will bear their own costs. .y ~ M.R.
Appeal allowed~