1976 Supreme(SC) 507

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
G. Ponniah Thevar, Appellant
Versus
Nalleyam Perumal Pillai and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1976,
D/- 15-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. S. Ramamurthi, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, Sr. Advocate (Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Advocate and Miss Veena Devi Khanna, Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 2 and 4.

Headnote:

Transfer of Property Act - Section 76 (a) - Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - Possession of land - Determination of tenancy agreement - Eviction of tenants - Whether a tenancy created by her could legally extend beyond her life - Whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise - Whether or not there is an order or decree of a Court for eviction of such cultivating tenant make an application to Revenue Divisional Officer and such application shall bear a Court-fee stamp of one rupee – One died leaving behind two widows - Last mentioned lady instituted a suit in Court of District for partitioning properties of deceased imp leading other widow and a nephew of deceased as defendants - That suit ended in a compromise - Under terms of compromise decree some land was given for enjoyment during her lifetime and thereafter absolutely to sons of second defendant of suit - Died on July She had however during her lifetime inducted a tenant appellant before us by means of a lease - After death of plaintiffs-respondents as remainder-men sued to evict appellant cultivating tenant on ground that his tenancy rights did not endure beyond lifetime - Court are therefore not concerned with any rights under any general or personal law which may enable remainder-men to evict a tenant of a life estate holder - Terms of statutory protection apply clearly to all tenancies governed by Act irrespective of nature of rights of person who leased land so long as lesser was entitled to create a tenancy - It is not disputed before us that was entitled to create a tenancy - Only question on which there is a dispute is whether a tenancy created by her could legally extend beyond her life - Madras High Court had apparently followed certain decisions of that Court which had applied principle that a life estate holder cannot create a tenancy which could last beyond the life of a life-estate holder - View taken by High Court and applied to statutory tenancies runs counter not only to principles underlying creation of statutory tenancy rights in agricultural land throughout length and breadth of country but it seems to us to be obviously in conflict with particular statutory protection conferred upon cultivating tenants in State – Held, In view of statutory definition of term landlord court think that suit itself would fail if plaintiffs were not landlords - Statutory definition of term landlord relates not only to person who created 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 right at time of filing suit to realize rents or evict persons in wrongful occupation - There is nothing in Act itself to show that protection given to cultivating tenant as defined in Act was given only against his original less or and did not extend to subsequent holders of land occupying capacity of landlord - Secondly it was urged that protection was given only to those persons who were cultivating tenants in 1955 when Act came into force - Argument has only to be stated to be rejected - There is not a scintilla of indication in provisions of Act to support such an impossible interpretation - Provisions of Act are clearly prospective except for provisions of Section 4 (1) of Act showing that even a person who was a cultivating tenant of any land on December but is not in possession thereof at commencement of Act could be treated as if he was in possession of land on December - Even Section 4 (1) of Act shows that protection was not meant merely for those who were cultivating tenants in 1955 - Provisions of Act show that they became enforceable as soon as Act became operative - There is nothing whatsoever in 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 - Hence court are unable to see any reason whatsoever for denying appellant clearly intended protections conferred upon cultivating tenants as defined in Act by provisions of Act set out above - It is true that this provision has been applied to tenancies created under various statutory provisions regulating rights of tenants to agricultural lands in States all over India - But court are not concerned here with a case in which position of alleged lessee is struck by Section 76 (a) of Transfer of Property Act - Such alleged lessees are not tenants at all at time when they are inducted on land as tenants whatever else they may be - Court therefore need not even refer to cases cited before us which relate either to this provision of law or to enactments of other States - Appeal allowed