Proper order to be passed in such suits.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. The above civil revision petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal had been referred to this Bench by the order of His Lordship, the Officiating Chief Justice, for an authoritative pronouncement on the question whether a suit instituted during the period of moratorium, during which period the institution of suits are prohibited by the provisions of Act XV of 1976, is to be dismissed as not maintainable or stayed till the expiry of the period during which the moratorium subsists. The above reference is necessitated in view of the conflict of decisions of this Court, one set of decisions taking the view that the suit must be dismissed and the another set of decisions, laying down that such suits ought to be stayed till the moratorium period is over.

2. Before referring to the conflicting decisions on this question it will be useful to set out the relevant sections of Act XV of 1976. Section 2(b) defines "agriculturist" and the same is as follows:

2(b). "agriculturist" means a person who owns an interest in agricultural land, and who, by reason of such interest, is in possession of such land or is in receipt of the rents or profits thereof and shall include a lessee; but shall not include-

(i) a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, or a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956, or a corporation formed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or of any special Indian Law, or

(ii) any person who was assessed to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or to agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, or to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Saks Tax Act, 1959 or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in any of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75.

Section 2(c) defines "debt" and the same reads as follows:

2(c). "Debt"-

(i) means any sum of money which a person is liable to pay under a contract (express or implied) for consideration received; and

(ii) includes rent in cash or kind which a person is liable to pay or deliver in respect of the lawful use and occupation of agricultural land.

Section 3 of Act XV of 1976 which bars the suits and applications against the agriculturist for the recovery of a debt is as follows:

3. Bar of suits and applications.--No suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt shall be made, and no suit or application for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of a debt, shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturist in any civil or revenue Court on and from the date, of commencement of this Act and before the expiry of two years and six months from the said date.

Section 4 of Act XV of 1976 relates to pending proceedings at the time of commencement of Act XV of 1976, which according to the Act will have to be stayed. Section 4 reads as follows:

4. Stay of Proceedings.--(1) All further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist, not Toeing proceedings for the amendment of pleadings or for the addition, substitution or the striking off of parties, but otherwise inclusive of proceedings consequent on orders or decrees made in appeals, revision petitions, or applications for review, shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, stand stayed until the expiry of two years and six months from the date of commencement of this Act:

(2) On application made by the defendant or the respondent or by all the defendants or all the respondents, as the case may be, the stay effected by Sub-section (1) in a suit or application shall be dissolved and the suit or application shall be proceeded with from the stage which had been reached when further proceedings in the suit or the application were stayed.

According to Section 3 of Act XV of 1976 quoted above no suit for the recovery of a debt c