Meaning of the words cultivating tenant.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, by the two petitioners before us, Mohamed Abubucker and Sankaralingam Pillai, under sub-section (5) of section 4 of Act XXV of 1955 (The Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act), as amended by Act XV of 1956. The provision runs thus:

“Any cultivating tenant, who, after the commencement of this Act, has been evicted except under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3, shall be entitled to apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer within two months from the date of such eviction or within two months from the date of coming into force of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, for the restoration to him of the possession of the lands from which he was evicted and to hold them with all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a cultivating tenant. The provisions of sub-section (4) shall, so far as may be, apply to such an application.”

The petitioners alleged that they had taken the lands on lease from the first respondent till the end of Fasli 1365. The case came up once before this Court ; but it is not necessary to refer to the earlier proceedings. The petitioner’ application was opposed mainly on the ground that they were not cultivating tenants within the meaning of the definition of ‘cultivating tenant’, in the Act. The definition, so far as, it is material, runs as follows:

“ ‘Cultivating Tenant' in relation to any land means a person who carried on personal cultivation of such land, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes:-

(i) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement.”

Sub-clause (ee), which was added by the amending Act, explains the term ‘personal cultivation’ thus:

“A person is said to carry on ‘personal cultivation ‘on a land when he contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of that land.”

On a consideration of the evidence adduced before him, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the two petitioners were not carrying on ‘personal cultivation’, and therefore, were not cultivating tenants, as defined in section 2 (a) of the Act. On this finding, he dimissed the petition. The petitioners seek a revision of this order.

The material facts which emerge from the evidence of the petitioners themselves, have been fully set out in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The first petitioner was merely a financier for the second petitioner. The second petitioner, as P.W. 1 spoke to all he used to do regarding the cultivation of the lands. He used to supervise the lands once in a month. He lives 22 miles away from the land and employs servants to carry on the cultivation. The question is whether these facts would justify the conclusion that the petitioners carry on personal cultivation on the land.

When the Civil Revision Petition orginally came up before one of us, attention was drawn to divergent views expressed by learned Judges of this Court. The case was therefore referred to a Division Bench.

Balakrishna Ayyar, J., was inclined to take a very liberal view of the definition in Kunchithapatham Pillai v. Ranganatham Pillai1. According to the learned Judge, in order to qualify as a ‘cultivating tenant’ within the meaning of section 2 (a) of Madras Act XXV of 1955, it was not necessary that a person should put his own muscular effort into the soil. The learned Judge observed:

“It is not necessary that he himself should plough the field or irrigate it or weed it or harvest it or thrash the grain that the field may yield. It is sufficient if the land is cultivated under his direct supervision and if further he assumes the risk of the cultivation. If he can decide what crops he would grow, when he would grow them and where he would grow them, if he can direct what labour should be employed and when and where and for what purposes, if h