Cultivating tenancies under Tamil Nadu law are not transferable, and a tenant must contribute physical labor to qualify as a statutory tenant.

JUDGMENT :

R.Subramanian, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 22.02.2023 in WP (MD) No.14946 of 2014.

Challenge in this Appeal is to the order of the Writ Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent seeking to quash the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai dated 18.06.2014.

2. In and by the said order dated 18.06.2014, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai had affirmed the orders of the Revenue Court, Madurai dated 04.07.2013, which in turn affirm the orders of the Tahsildar, Madurai North, dated 20.04.2007 recording respondents 1 to 4 in the Revision as tenants in respect of a land measuring about 1 acre 38 cents in Survey No.173/1B and 174 of Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The brief facts that led to the proceedings before the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (Act 10 of 1969) are as follows:

One Santhanam, son of Rayappan was a cultivating tenant in respect of the said lands under the third respondent herein and his name was also recorded as a tenant under Act 10 of 1969. Claiming that the said Santhanam, had transferred the lease hold rights to the first respondent herein, the first respondent moved the Record Officer and an order was passed by the Record Officer on 02.08.1985 accepting the transfer and recording the name of the first respondent as a tenant. However, the appellants claiming to be the heirs of the said Santhanam, the cultivating tenant had filed an application in TR No.39 of 2004 seeking modification of the entries in the approved record of the Tenancy Rights under Section 5 of Act 10 of 1969. The Record Officer rejected the request by his order dated 20.04.2007. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred an Appeal under Section 6 of Act 10 of 1969, before the Revenue Court.

4. The Revenue Court by its order dated 04.07.2013 allowed the Appeal and directed registration of the names of the appellants as the tenants. In coming to the said conclusion, the Revenue Court had taken note of the fact that a statutory tenancy which is protected under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 is not transferable for consideration. Adverting to the definition of the term tenant under the said Act, the Revenue Court found that a transferee from a tenant for consideration cannot claim to be a statutory tenant under the enactment.

5. The Revenue Court also took note of the fact that the first respondent, who claims to be a tenant is a citizen of Singapore and she is running a Higher Secondary School as a Correspondent. The Revenue Court found that the claim that the first respondent has been cultivating the land contributing her own physical labour is wholly unbelievable. On the said conclusion, the Revenue Court set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed recording of the names of the appellants 1 to 8 as the tenants.

6. Aggrieved a Revision was filed by the first respondent before the District Revenue Officer under Section 7 of the Act. The District Revenue Officer dismissed the Revision, on the conclusion that there are discrepancies in the amount that is said to have been paid to Santhanam, the original tenant and the transfer document which transfers interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- is an unregistered instrument. It was also held that such transfer is not permitted by the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

7. The fact that the first respondent is a Correspondent of a Convent School and the fact that she is residing in Singapore for more than 7 months in a year was taken into account to conclude that she could not have contributed her own physical labour. On the above conclusions, the District Revenue Officer dismissed the Revision by his order dated 18.06.2014 leading to the Writ Petition by the first respondent.

8. The Writ Court, however, allowed the writ petition on the conclusion that the tenancy wa