JOSEPH ALIAS JOSE Vs. GULAM GASOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a landlord of certain lands leased out the first respondent for commercial Purposes. The first respondent has constructed a building thereupon wich is admittedly used for Commercial purposes. Alleging that the first respondent was in arrears of rent, the appellant filed An application under Section 26 of the Kerala land Reforms Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with rule 16 of the Kerala land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. An objection was taken to the maintainability of the said application. The land Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the first respondent moved the learned single Judge by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The original petition was allowed.Being aggrieved thereby, the first respondent is in appeal before us. operate.

(2.) The learned single judge has taken the view that by reason of the exemption granted under Section 3(1) of the Act to leases for commercial purposes, the land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the first respondent.the relevant portion of section 3 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) Exemption.-- (1) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to - xx xx (111) leases of land or of buildings or of both specifically granted for industrial or commercial purposes; or xx xx 3. It is seen that the intention of the legislature is not to apply anything cotained in chapter II to specified categories of leases, including lease of land or of buildings or of both specifically granted for industrial or commercial purposes. It is not, in dispute that the lease of the appellants land in favour of the first respondent was specifically of the type described in clause (111) of sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Act. Chapter II of theAct comprises several provisions commencing from section 3 and ending with section 80G. When the legislature by express provision at the commencement of chapter II declares that nothing in the chapter shall apply to leases of specified categories, what is meant thereby is that sections 3 to 80G would not apply to leases of specified categories including the one specified in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) opf section 3 of the Act. Consequently, Section 26 would not apply to such a lease at all. This is precisely the reasoning of the learned single judge.