1977 Supreme(Ker) 244
Judges : GEORGE VADAKKEL
KRISHNANKUTTY - Appellant
Versus
BALAKRISHNA GUPTAN - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 346 of 1976
Decided On : 11/07/1977
Advocates Appeared :
T.R.G. Wariyar; K. Ramkumar; Sebastian Davis; For Appellant K. Chandrasekharan; P.N.K. Achan; K. Vijayan; N.N. Sugunapalan; For Respondent
A judgment-debtor is entitled to invoke S.73(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and seek amendment of a decree for recovery of arrears of rent accrued before 15-5-1968, before the sale is confirmed.
Headnote:
The judgment concerns the sale of leasehold property for arrears of rent and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court analyzed the applicability of S.73(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which allows a judgment-debtor to seek amendment of a decree for recovery of arrears of rent accrued before 15-5-1968. The court held that the judgment-debtor was entitled to invoke S.73(3) and get the decree amended before the sale was confirmed. The court directed the lower court to determine the correct amount payable and amend the decree accordingly.
1. For arrears of rent the 1st respondent-decree-bolder obtained a decree for sate of the leasehold. The final decree was passed on 10 11966. It is not disputed before me that the decree in question is not one to which Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not attracted Pursuant to the said decree the leasehold was brought to sale on 5121966. The same was sold on that day for a portion of the decree amount. However, as is seen from the first court's order and as submitted before me, the sale has not yet been confirmed.
2. It appears that after the leasehold was said as aforesaid, the appellant-judgment-debtor filed an application to set aside the sale invoking R.90 of Order XXI of the Code. While the said application was pending, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, was amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which came into force on 111970. On the coming into force of the amending Act, the E P. as well as the application for setting aside the sale under R.90 of Order XXI were dismissed. The decree-holder preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the execution petition but the judgment-debtor did not prefer any appeal against the dismissal of the application for setting aside the sale. The decree-holder's appeal, A S. No. 64 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam, was allowed on 22 11972. Pursuant to the decision in the appeal the E. P. was thereafter restored. Thereupon the appellant filed I. A. No. 315 of 1973 invoking S.73 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended by the amending Act of 1969. It is also submitted that the appellant has filed another application, E. A No. 128 of 1976 before the lower court invoking R.5 of the Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The last mentioned petition is, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, pending before the lower court.
3. S.73 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, enables a judgment-debtor against whom a decree or order has been passed for the recovery of arrears of rent that accrued due prior to 151968, to get such decree or order amended in accordance with the provisions of sub-S. (1) of S.73. By the earlier portion of sub-S. (3) of S.73, a decree-holder-landlord can enforce the decree for arrears of rent that accrued due prior to 151968 only to the extent of the amount due to him (the landlord) under sub-S. (1). It is not necessary in this case to go into sub-s. (1) itself in so far as the question before me is as to whether the application field by the appellant invoking S.73 (3) of the aforesaid Act for amending the decree is maintainable.
4. The lower courts dismissed the application as aforesaid, the first court holding that the only remedy available to the judgment-debtor tenant is the one provided under S.130 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which enables a judgment-debtor coming within the purview of that provision to seek a sale held in execution to be set aside provided the sale was for arrears of rent that accrued due before 151968 and he had not been dispossessed from the property that was sold in execution; the lower appellate court dismissed the application under the mis-apprehension that the sale held on 5121966 was confirmed. The lower appellate court seems to have been of the view that such a petition as the one filed by the appellant would have been maintainable but for such confirmation.
5. S.73 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, read as a whole appears to confer certain benefits on a tenant who is in arrears of rent. The crucial date mentioned in that section is 1 51968; by sub-s. (1) thereof the landlord is precluded from recovering towards such arrears anything more than what has been specified in the Table contained in that sub-section. Sub-s. (2) of S.73 provides that where any suit, appeal, revision or application involving a claim for arrears of rent accrued due prior to 151968 is pending, such suit, appeal, revision or application shall be disposed of i