A sub-tenant who was inducted into the premises after the determination of the lease in favour of the quondam tenant could still claim the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, if he contributes his physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land and he was lawfully inducted into possession by the quondam tenant.

1. The petitioners are the tenants who were sought to be evicted by the respondent under S. 3(2)(b) read with S. 4(a) and (b) of Madras Act XXV of 1955. The sole question which arose for consideration before the Authorised Officer, who was the Revenue Court, Pudukottai, was whether the petitioners were ‘tenants’ at all within the meaning of the Act, and/or if they were sub-tenants, were they entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. After fully considering the documentary and oral evidence let in, the Authorised Officer, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were let into the land after the determination of the lease in favour of the original tenant. After noticing the facts, he was of the view that even if a cultivating tenant grants a sublease of a part of what has been demised to him, the sub-tenant would be liable for eviction under the provisions of S. 3(2)(b) read with S. 4 of the Act. But, he later on, found, as a fact, that the assignment of the lease in favour of the sub lessees in this case was undoubtedly long after the determination of the original tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant and that the sub-lessees could not, therefore, claim to have got into possession of the land under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. On these grounds, he held that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under the Act. The petitioners have now come up before this court in revision.

2. The question, therefore, is whether a sub-tenant, who was inducted into the premises, which is agricultural land in this case, after the determination of the lease in favour of the quondam tenant, could still claim the benefits under the Act. This leads on to the question as to what is the status of a tenant under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, who continues in occupation of the demised premises after the determination of the lease? Ordinarily, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, he has a right to continue in possession thereof, but there is a snapping of the contractual relationship as between himself and the landlord in relation to the demised property. What he secures by continuing in possession of the property after the determination of the lease is what is termed in legal phraseology as the right of irremovability; but, he cannot claim rights which ordinarily flow from a contract of tenancy. But, in cases where he holds over and remains in possession after the determination of the tenancy, certain statutes which are of a later origin and which are agrarian in nature, have created certain special benefits and vested in such persons holding over and remaining in the demised premises after the determination of the tenancy, certain special rights not provided for under the Transfer of Property Act. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, during the period and currency of the contractual tenancy, the tenant has the option to assign the same and bind the assignee and create a fictional contractual relationship between the assignee and the landlord, and also make his interest in the land as tenant, heritable; this is not available to a tenant who remains in possession of the property after the determination of the lease. Such a tenant who holds over cannot assign or make his right of irremovability, which is appurtenant to his status as a statutory tenant, heritable. But, certain exceptions, however, have been envisaged in what I characterised as agrarian legislation, and one such provision is found in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

3. The earlier view which the Supreme Court took and which V. Ramaswami, J. followed in Subbiah Thevar v. Muthurangasami Naicker 1975-I-M.L.J. 306=88 L.W. 775 appears to be no longer an opinion which has the weightage demanding following up. This is so, because, the learned Judge himself, after noticing the later decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram A.I