CHOYIKUTTY Vs. VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and this revision petition are by the same person against the same order, an order made under S.52(1) of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act XXXIII of 1951. Uncertain which remedy really lay he has, by way of abundant caution, pursued both. The appeal was before the District Court, Kozhikode and it has been withdrawn to this court for hearing along with the revision petition.

(2.) The dispute is over a piece of land (a paramba) measuring 431/2 X 391/2 six foot koles, or 1.42 acres. There is a dwelling house in the property which was valued by the commissioner in 1948 at Rs. 198/- and odd. On 29-11-1944, the appellant revision-petitioner (whom I shall hereafter call the appellant) bought the jenmom right in the property. The property was at the time outstanding on kanom with the respondents, and, in O. S. 880 of 1945 of the District Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, a suit instituted on 25-7-1945, the appellant obtained a decree for eviction against the respondents under S.20(5) of the Malabar Tenancy Act 1929 (hereinafter called the principal Act) as it then stood. The decree was made on 21-6-1948, after Madras Act XXIV of 1945 had come into force restricting the landlord's right to evict by requiring him to prove not merely that he wanted the holding bona fide for his own cultivation, but further that he needed it bona fide for the purpose of maintenance. On 4-9-1948 the appellant obtained possession in execution of the decree, and he still remains in possession.

(3.) On 1-8-1953, within one year of the commencement of Act XXXIII of 1951, the respondents made the present application, E. A. 216 of 1953, to be restored to the possession of the holding as tenants under S.52 of that Act. The application was dismissed by the first court on 22-3-1956, and the order of dismissal shows that the grounds alleged by the respondents for showing that the decree for eviction would not have been passed had Act XXXIII of 1951 been in force at the time were: