Back
1958 Supreme(Mad) 91
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAGOPALAN,BALAKRISHNA AYYAR,BASHEER AHMED SAYEED
Sri Navanaethaswaraswami Devastanam, Sikkil, represented by its Executive Officer
Versus
P. Swaminatha Pillai
Appeals Nos. 558 and 559 of 1950
Decided On : 18 March, 1958
K. Rajah Ayyar and G.R. Jagadisan, for Appellant; V. Vedantachari, T.S. Kuppuswami Aiyar, R.G. Rajan and S. Thyagaraja Aiyar, for Respondent.OPINION
A lease granted by a landlord running beyond 31-10-1948 remains in force even after 31-10-1948 under S. 8 (5) of the Estates Land Act.
Headnote:
ESTATES LAND ACT - S. 8 (5) - LEASE GRANTED BY LANDLORD RUNNING BEYOND 31-10-1948 - REMAINS IN FORCE EVEN AFTER 31-10-1948 - LESSEES ARE NOT RYOTS AND HAVE NOT ACQUIRED OCCUPANCY RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
The village of Sellur belongs to the Navaneethe-swaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, as ekabogam mirasdar of sole proprietor. The village was not an estate within the meaning of Madras Act No. 1 of 1908, as that Act originally stood, but became one by virtue of Madras Act XVIII of 1936. The lands which form the subject-matter of this litigation are not private lands. On 29-11-1917 this court decided in A. S. Nos. 146, 228 and 230 of 1916 that the village was not an estate, from which it follows that no ryots had any permanent rights of occupancy in the lands.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench has, by its judgment, dated 15-3-1958, held that under S. 8 (5) of the Estates Land Act a lease granted by a landlord running beyond 31-10-1948 remains in force even after 31-10-1948 and the learned Judges have, therefore, held that the defendants are not ryots and have not, by virtue of their remaining in possession of the lands after 31-10-1948, acquired any occupancy rights.
Issues: Whether a lease granted by a landlord running beyond 31-10-1948 remains in force even after 31-10-1948 under S. 8 (5) of the Estates Land Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "for a period of 12 years" can apply only to the word "right" and not to the words "on such terms as may be agreed upon" by the parties. The Act says that the land-holder shall have something. What is that something? The object of the verb "have" is "right." How long is this right to last? That is specified by the words which follow, viz., "for a period of 12 years."
Final Decision: The appellant will get half the costs of these appeals from the respondents, the other half being disallowed, in view of the fact that the Full Bench decision resolving the conflict in the views between the Benches was delivered only long after the filing of the appeals, and the lower courts decisions in favour of the occupancy rights was based on a decision of this court now held to be erroneous. The appellant will be granted a refund of the court-fees paid in both the appeals.
BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, J. :
The village of Sellur belongs to the Navaneethe-swaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, as ekabogam mirasdar of sole proprietor. The village was not an estate within the meaning of Madras Act No. 1 of 1908, as that Act originally stood, but became one by virtue of Madras Act XVIII of 1936. The lands which form the subject-matter of this litigation are not private lands. On 29-11-1917 this court decided in A. S. Nos. 146, 228 and 230 of 1916 that the village was not an estate, from which it follows that no ryots had any permanent rights of occupancy in the lands.
By a lease deed dated 31-7-1946 the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam leased some of the lands situated in the village to Srinivasa Naidu, for a period of three years. Similarly, by another lease deed dated 29-7-1946 the Devasthanam leased some other lands to one Swaminatha Pillai, also for a period of three years. After 31-12-1948 the lessees refused to pay rent at the contract rate. They also refused to surrender possession.
They claimed that they had acquired permanent rights of occupancy in the lands and that they were liable to pay only at rates to be ascertained in the manner provided by the Madras Estates Land Act. The District Judge, East Tanjore, upheld the claim of the lessees. Thereupon the Devasthanam came to this court in App. Nos. 558 and 559 of 1950.
2. In Navaneetheeswaraswami Devasthanam v. Ganapathi Thevar, 1955-2 Mad L. J. 112: (AIR 1955 Mad 473) (A), a Bench of this court, consisting of the Chief Justice and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., held in circumstances similar to those present here, but in respect of other lands in the village, that the ryots were not entitled to permanent rights of occupancy, and, that they were bound by the terms of the lease. A different view, however, was expressed by Subba Rao and Panchapakesa Ayyar, JJ., in Seshayyla v. Vedanta Narasimhadharyfulu, ILR 1955 Mad 1151 : (AIR 1955 Mad 252) (B). In view of this conflict of opinion, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., before whom App. Nos. 558 and 559 of 1950 came up for decision, referred the following questions to a Full Bench :
"(1) (a) Under S. 8 (5) of the Estates Land Act has a land-holder admitting any person to the possession of ryoti lands on such terms as may be agreed upon between them for the period of 12 years from the commencement of the Estates Land Act (3rd Amendment, Act 1936), as specifically mentioned in S. 8 (5) the right within the period of those 12 years to lease out the lands to any person for 99 years, or any other long period, on suck terms as may be agreed between them, or will suck lease operate only till 1-11-1948 regarding its terms, and then be automatically replaced by the Estates Land Act?
(1) (b) If such a lease for 99 years etc., entered into between them within the 12 years period is held to be valid, as conferring on the lessee a right to continue for the term mentioned, can the landholder claim rents in respect of the holding after 1-11-1948 as per the lease, if the rents stipulated are higher than those claimable under S. 25 of the Estates Land Act, in spite of the lands continuing to be ryoti lands?
(2) If a land-holder, within the 12 years period, admits any person to the possession of such ryoti lands, on such terms as may be agreed upon between them, but the lease extends beyond 1-11-1948, can the lossee continuing in possession on 1-11-1948 claim a permanent right of occupancy in the holding, under S. 6 (1) of the Estates Land Act, on the ground that he had been impliedly admitted into possession of ryoti lands situated in an estate, and he has continued to be a tenant under the landholder on 1-11-1948, after the expiry of the 12 years period mentioned in S. 8 (5). "
3. The questions raised by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., may perhaps be restated in a shorter form as follows :
"Where before 31-10-1946 a land-holder has granted a lease of lands situated in a village, referred to in S. 8 (5) of the Madras Estates Land Act, for a term whic
