Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-These writ petitions raise for consideration the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunals created under the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (XIV of 1952) and the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) in relation to tenants on lands which are claimed to be comprised in “Estates” falling within the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908). These writ petitions originally came on before one of us, but in view of the importance of the questions raised and the difficult points of statutory construction involved the petitions were directed to be posted before a Bench and they were accordingly heard by us.

Before setting out or examining the precise points which are raised by these petitions we consider it useful to narrate the facts which have given rise to them.

We shall start with W.P. No. 1092 of 1956. It has been filed by tenants against whom an order for eviction was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, acting under section 3 (2) (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The landlord filed a petition G.T.P. No. 30 of 1956 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, for eviction of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent. In this petition he stated that there subsisted between him and the respondents on the date of his application a tenancy from year to year, the year being the calendar year. A formal tenancy agreement had been executed on 5th January, 1952, by the father of the tenants sought to be evicted and he stated that after the father died, the sons continue to be in possession under the lease deed though without a formal document evidencing the tenancy. The landlord alleged that a sum of Rs. 2,000 was in arrears being the rent due to him for the calendar years 1954 and 1955. Section 3 (2) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) under which this application was filed enacted that if a cultivating tenant were in arrear “at the commencement of this Act” with respect to rent payable to the landlord and accrued due subsequent to the 31st March, 1954, he could be evicted from the land if he did not pay such rent within a month after the commencement of this Act or if he, after the commencement of this Act, did not pay rent within a month after such rent accrued due. As the Act received the assent of the President on 24th September, 1955, there can be no doubt that if the tenant were “a cultivating tenant” within the Act and the rent was in arrear he could be evicted from his holding.

The tenants filed a counter objecting to the eviction. The plea raised by them was that the applicant for eviction was not a landlord and that they were not tenants as defined in Act (XXV of 1955). This was explained in paragraph 5 of the counter thus:

“The lands are situated in Biroji Agraharam which was an inam originally. The Inamdar had both the varams in these lands. By virtue of the definition of Estate having been amended in the Madras Estates I and Act this Inam village had become an estate.....These respondents and their father were in possession of these lands on the relevant dates as required by law and they have acquired a right of occupancy in these lands. The petitioner is only a landholder as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act. For the above reasons it is clear that the relationship between them is purely governed by the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act alone. Therefore this petition under the Madras Act (XXV of 1955) is not maintainable.”

There were also other defences which might be termed as on merits regarding the quantum of the arrears but to these it is not necessary to advert in this petition.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, who enquired into this petition held that though the village might have been ‘an estate ‘falling within the definition of that expression by reason of the amendment effected to the Estates Land Act in 1936 the respondents (the tenants) had no occupancy rights, and that the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document