MANI CHACKO Vs. SUBRAMONIAN MOOTHATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the Land Tribunal a petition was filed for fixation of fair rent by the present revision petitioners on 26-8-1967. On 11-11-1968 the landlord filed a suit O. S. 122 of 1968 for recovery of property on the allegation that the defendants trespassed into the property on 28-9-1968. The tenant thereupon filed I. A. No. 724 of 1970 under S.32 of the Land Reforms Act, stating that the suit is not entertainable, and prayed for its dismissal. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that S.32 will not apply to suits already filed and will apply only to suits filed after the coming into force of the amended Act 35 of 1969. This view is not correct, because S.108(3) of Act 35 of 1969 provides:

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that S.32 can apply only to suit for eviction of a cultivating tenant and in the present case, according to him the defendants being not cultivating tenants, the bar will not apply. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on the definition of ''eviction" as given, in S.2(2) wherein it is said that "eviction" means the recovery of possession of land from a tenant or the recovery of a kudikidappu from the occupation of the kudikidappukaran. According to the learned counsel, the defendants in this case are trespassers and as such the suit is for recovery of property and not for "eviction" as contemplated by sub-s.(12) of S.2. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala 1970 KLT 659 (FB.) Para.65 is a direct answer to this contention. In that paragraph the Full Bench deals with the question as follows: