The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person in possession under a lease of private forest is not entitled to the benefits of deemed tenancy and fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

The suit by the landlord for recovery of property on expiry of lease and for mesne profits was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.

2. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 50 acres. It is a private forest. On 13.09.1960, the property was demised on lease by the plaintiff to the defendant for establishing an Engineering College. The lease was created after obtaining prior sanction from the Commissioner of HR & CE and also under the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949(MPPF Act). The term of lease was 36 years. Since the term of lease expired, the plaintiff is entitled to get back possession. It is the term of the lease that, the defendants are entitled to market value of the buildings that may be put up in the property. The plaintiff is willing to pay the said amount. However, the defendants refuse to accede. It is thereupon that the suit is filed.

3. The contention of the defendant is one of deemed tenancy under Section 7D, fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR Act) and consequent right of non-evictability.

4. The trial court referred the defence plea to the Land Tribunal in terms of Section 125(3) of the KLR Act. In the meanwhile, two SM proceedings in relation to the very same claim were registered, as SM Nos.74/91 and 75/91, and were pending before the Land Tribunal. The three proceedings were considered together by the Tribunal and a common order was passed holding that the defendants are entitled for the benefit of Section 7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

5. On receipt of the finding of the Land Tribunal, the trial court dismissed the suit. Challenging the decree and judgment, this appeal has been filed. As against the order in SM Nos.74/91, the plaintiff preferred appeal as AA 16/2016 accompanied by an application to condone the delay. Though initially on 11.01.2018 the delay was condoned, subsequently the Tribunal purported to suo motu review the order on 26.12.2019 and dismissed the delay condonation application and the appeal. The same is under challenge in CRP(LR) 36/2020. Challenging the order in SM 75/91, the plaintiff filed AA 22/16. The appellate authority allowed the appeal in part and directed the Land Tribunal to issue fresh purchase certificate. The said order is under challenge by the plaintiff in CRP(LR) 33/2020.

6. The point that arises for determination in the appeal is :-

“Whether the defendant is entitled for the benefit of the status of a deemed tenant and fixity of tenure under Section 7D and Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ?”

7. I have heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and learned senior counsel Sri.P.Viswanathan and learned counsel Sri.R.T.Pradeep for the respondent.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, Section 13 of the KLR Act contained in chapter II of KLR Act provides for fixity of tenure for tenants. The defendant is a contractual tenant and not a deemed tenant. Hence Section 7D of the KLR Act which confers the status of a deemed tenant is not attracted. Even if it is attracted and the defendant is considered as a deemed tenant, since admittedly the defendant is in possession under a lease of private forest, in the light of Section 3(1)(vii) which exempts leases of private forests from the applicability of Chapter II of the KLR Act, the defendant is not entitled for fixity under Section 13 of the KLR Act.

9. The respondent would on the other hand contend that, the definition of private forests in the KLR Act, as it originally stood was, forests to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act(MPPF Act) applied. Later, by virtue of the amendment to the KLR Act (Act 35 of 1969), the forests under the MPPF Act was taken away and the definition was substituted. By the same amending Act, occupants of a particular category of forests under the MPPF Act were given the status of ‘deemed tenants’. The defendant is undisputedly within that c