Back
1976 Supreme(Mad) 228
Madras High Court
P. S. KAILASAM
Sornathayammal - Appellant
Versus
Veerana Thevar - Respondent
Decided On : 04/02/1976
E. Damodaran for K. Alagiriswami, for Petitioner; V. Krishnan, for Respondent.
The interpretation of Sections 3(2), 4(5), 5(1)(c), 6-BB of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and Sections 3(2), 5(1)(c), 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1972 in the context of eviction of a tenant and restoration of possession.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU CULTIVATING TENANTS PROTECTION ACT, 1955 - SECTION 4(5) - SECTION 6-BB - TAMIL NADU CULTIVATING TENANTS ARREARS OF RENT (RELIEF) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3(2) - SECTION 5(1)(C) - SECTION 7 - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION TO TENANT - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - EVICTION OF TENANT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
A landowner filed an eviction petition against a tenant for non-payment of rent under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The tenant challenged the eviction order in the High Court, which ordered interim stay subject to the tenant depositing a certain amount within a specified time. The tenant failed to comply with the deposit requirement, and the landowner obtained an order for eviction and took possession of the land. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1972 came into force, which provided for a six-month stay of proceedings for eviction or recovery of arrears of rent. The tenant filed a petition under Section 7 of the 1972 Act seeking restoration of possession, which was allowed by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of eviction passed against the tenant was valid as it was in accordance with Section 3(4) of the 1955 Act. However, the court found that the delivery of possession to the landowner was contrary to the statutory stay provided under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1972 Act. The court further held that Section 4(5) of the 1955 Act, which provides for restoration of possession to tenants evicted except under Section 3(4), was not applicable in this case as the tenant was evicted under Section 3(4). The court also held that Section 6-BB of the 1955 Act, which empowers the High Court to direct restoration of possession to a tenant where an order of eviction is set aside in revision, was not applicable as the order of eviction in this case had not been set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of eviction passed against the tenant was valid? 2. Whether the delivery of possession to the landowner was contrary to the statutory stay provided under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1972 Act? 3. Whether Section 4(5) of the 1955 Act was applicable in this case? 4. Whether Section 6-BB of the 1955 Act was applicable in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of eviction passed against the tenant was valid as it was in accordance with Section 3(4) of the 1955 Act. 2. The court held that the delivery of possession to the landowner was contrary to the statutory stay provided under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1972 Act. The court interpreted Section 5(1)(c) along with Section 3(2) of the 1972 Act and held that while all applications and proceedings were stayed for a period of six months from the date of publication, the tenant under Section 3(2) was enabled to pursue his remedies for paying the current rent and getting his arrears of rent wiped out. 3. The court held that Section 4(5) of the 1955 Act was not applicable in this case as the tenant was evicted under Section 3(4). The court interpreted Section 4(5) and held that it provides a remedy to tenants who have been evicted except under the provisions of Section 3(4). 4. The court held that Section 6-BB of the 1955 Act was not applicable in this case as the order of eviction had not been set aside in revision. The court interpreted Section 6-BB and held that it empowers the High Court to direct restoration of possession to a tenant where an order of eviction is set aside in revision.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the landowner's petition for revision and directed the tenant to restore possession of the land to the landowner within three months.
ORDER:- This petition is filed by the landowner against the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Madurai, in T. C. T. P. No. 237 of 1972, D/-26-4-1973 allowing the petition by the tenant (Respondent herein) under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 and directing restoration of possession by the land-owner to the tenant.
2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision petition are as follows:- The tenant was cultivating 3-51 acres of wet lands belonging to the landowner. Due to default in payment of rent, the landowner filed a petition under Section 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act of 1955 and an order of eviction was passed in T. C. T. P. No. 163 of 1970, D/- 14-2-1972. The tenant took the matter up to the High Court and the High Court in C. M. P. No. 3819 of 1972 pending C. R. P. No. 823 of 1972 ordered interim stay directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- into the trial Court within one month from 6-7-1972. This deposit was not made within one month of 6-7-1972 as directed. After the expiry of the period the landowner filed an eviction petition on 7-8-1972, stating that the tenant has failed to comply with the directions of the High Court by paying the amount. The Civil revision petition itself was subsequently dismissed on 23-2-1973. On application by the landowner for eviction, notice was issued to the tenant for appearance on 21-8-1972. Though the tenant acknowledged the notice, he did not appear for the hearing on 21-8-1972. The Court in E. P. No. 13 of 1972 in T. C. T. P. No. 163 of 1970 dated 21-8-1972 ordered the eviction of the tenant and possession was taken over by the landlord on 23-8-1972.
3. Act 21 of 1972 i. e. Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1972 came into force on 11-8-1972. It may be noted that this was four days after the landowner filed his eviction petition on 7-8-1972. It is the plea of Mr. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the tenant (respondent herein) that the result of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 is that there is an absolute stay of proceedings for a period of six months from the date on which the Act came into force, i. e., from 11-8-1972 and therefore the order of eviction passed and possession taken by the landowner on 23-8-1972 is non est and therefore the delivery of possession will have to be treated as a nullity.
4. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to examine a few provisions of the Act 21 of 1972. Section 3 of the Act provides certain relief to the tenant on payment of arrears of rent. All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord and outstanding on the 30th June 1971, shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefor, if such cultivating tenant satisfies one of the conditions referred to in the section. We are concerned with Clause (ii) which gives the benefit of the section if the cultivating tenant pays or deposits in the manner specified in Clause (b) within six months from the date of the publication of this Act, or under Clause (iii), he is deemed to have paid or deposited under this Act. The effect of the section is that the arrears of rent outstanding on 30th June 1971 would be deemed to have been discharged if the condition stipulated in this section is fulfilled. Now under Clause (b) a cultivating tenant may either pay the current rent to the landlord, or deposit in the Court or before the competent authority to the account of the landlord, the current rent, or if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit. Clause (c) of Section 3 prescribes the procedure for a tenant to make a deposit of the arrears of rent. When the arrears of rent is deposited the competent authority shall cause notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and determine the current rent arrears and direct the cultivating tenant to deposit any further sum as due within t
