The legislative intent of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is to safeguard and further the interest of the tenant, and S.16 of the Act does not have an overriding effect on any other law, contract to the contrary, custom, or usage.

K. Bhaskaran, J.

1. This revision under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act XXXV of 1969 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Trichur, dated 10th January 1977 and made in A. A. No. 639 of 1975, reversing the order of the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, dated 20th November 1973 and made in O.A. No. 739 of 1970, which was an application filed by the revision petitioner under S.16 of the Act for resumption of an extent of 4.80 acres of land, it being item No. 3 in the schedule to Ext. A1 lease deed, dated 6th July 1871. The Land Tribunal allowed the application; but, as already noticed, in reversal of that order the Appellate Authority dismissed the application. It is aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority that the present revision has been filed by the land owner. What weighed with the Appellate Authority to come to the conclusion that the land owner was not entitled to resume the land from the cultivating tenant was its finding that in terms of the lease deed (Ext. A1) the land owner was not entitled to resume the land, it being a lease in perpetuity.

2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is nobody's case that the revision petitioner did not require the holding bona fide for cultivation by himself; or that the respondents were not in possession of land exceeding the ceiling area; or that by the resumption the total extent of land in the possession of the petitioner would be raised above the ceiling area; or that the total extent of land in the possession of the respondents would be reduced below the ceiling area by the resumption. His argument is that when there is no violation of any one of these conditions mentioned in S.16 of the Act, an order for resumption should automatically follow upon an application being filed by the petitioner (land owner) in that behalf.

3. S.16 of the Act provides:

"Resumption for personal cultivation from tenant holding more than ceiling area. - A landlord (other than a sthani or the trustee or owner of a place of public religious worship) who requires the holding bona fide for cultivation by himself, or any member of his family, may resume from his tenant, who is in possession of land exceeding the ceiling area, the whole or portion of the holding, subject to the condition that, by such resumption, the total extent of land in the possession of the landlord is not raised above the ceiling area and the total extent of land in the possession of the cultivating tenant is not reduced below the ceiling area."

(Explanations omitted).

On behalf of the revision petitioner it was contended that the nature of the lease granted, whether it is in perpetuity or otherwise, is immaterial; and under the scheme of the Act the land owner having less than the ceiling area requiring the holding bona fide for cultivation was entitled to resumed land from the tenant holding land in excess of the ceiling area subject to the condition that by such resumption neither the total extent of land held by the land owner would be raised above the ceiling area, nor the total extent of land held by the tenant is reduced below the ceiling area.

4. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted by the counsel that the Land Reforms Act being a piece of progressive legislation aimed primarily at the protection of the interest and improvement of the lot of the tenants, the provisions of the Act have to be given a liberal construction to ensure the rights enjoyed by the tenants are not taken away from them. S.16 does not begin with a non obstanti clause as in the case of S.4 to 11 and 13. According to him the provisions of S.14 to 23 are not of an over riding nature so as to ignore anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom, usage or contract, or in any decree, judgment or order of a court. This aspect is emphasised to press the point that when Ext. A1 lease deed styled as Anubhava Pathram fixed no period