Purchaser of lands in possession of cultivating tenants.

These petitions for grant of leave under Article 133(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution arise out of proceedings taken by the respondents, the landlords, under the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. The respondents purchased the property from the previous owners, Nachai Ammal and her sons under two sale deeds, Exhibit P-6 dated 22nd January, 1960, and Exhibit P-7 dated 9th March, 1960. On 25th May, 1960, the prior vendors had issued a notice to the tenants, the petitioners herein, claiming the arrears of rent due from them for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and also threatening eviction. Under Exhibit P-5 dated 5th December, 1960, the arrears of rent due from the tenants to the vendors were assigned to the respondents, the purchasers, who filed the petition for eviction on 2nd January, 1961, on the grounds that the petitioners herein, the tenants, were guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent.

The tenants resisted the eviction proceedings on the ground that there were no arrears, that they had paid the same to the previous landlords, the vendors, and that even if they were in arrears, the purchaser, who purchased the property subsequently could not rely upon the arrears accrued due prior to the purchase as a ground for eviction. For the period 1960-61 the tenants contended that there was diminution in the extent of land leased out to them and that there should be a corresponding abatement in the rent. The Revenue Divisional Officer overruled these objections of the tenants, holding that the tenants were in arrears in a sum of about Rs. 4,800 and that they should be evicted if they did not pay the arrears within six weeks from the date of the order.

The tenants preferred revision petitions against that order and in view of the importance of the points of law and the objections raised by the tenants in the revision petitions they were posted before a Bench. We dismissed the revision petitions holding that the respondents were entitled to obtain an order for eviction.

The main point urged before us in the revision petitions on behalf of the tenants was that, under the scheme of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act if the ground of eviction is one of arrears of rent, a subsequent purchaser could not rely upon the same even though he had obtained an assignment of the arrears of rent from the prior vendor. The other point that was urged was that the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have passed a rolled up order but that he should have first passed an order determining the arrears and giving some time for the payment thereof and that he should have passed a second order for eviction in the event of default by the tenants to pay the arrears as found due. On an elaborate consideration of the provisions of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the relevant case-law both under the Transfer of Property Act and under the various tenancy legislations we held that a subsequent purchaser would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction even though the ground of eviction may be the arrears of rent accrued due to the prior vendor. We also held that the fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed a rolled up order did not render the order illegal.

We are satisfied that this is a case in which leave should be granted under Article 133(1)(b) and (c). A perusal of our judgment will show that the point raised involves substantial questions of law; in any event this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. As to when a question of law could be said to be a substantial question of law satisfying the requirements of Article 133 it is sufficient to refer to the statement of the law in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Chunilal v. Mehta v. C.S. & M. Co., Ltd.1. In this decision the Supreme Court referred to the divergence of judicial opinion amongst the various High Courts and preferred to follow the test and the broader view propounded b