CHOYI Vs. KUNHIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in the revision petition relates to the interpretation of S. 3 of the Kerala Cultivators and Tenants' (Temporary protection) Act, 1970 (Act 20 of 1970 ).

(2.) THE plaintiff who is the revision petitioner filed the suit on 19-7-1969 for restraining respondents 1 and 2 from entering into the plaint schedule property on the ground that it is in the possession of the plaintiff. Along with the plaint the plaintiff filed I. A. 836 of 1969 for temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. THE respondents took notice and the matter was being adjourned from time to time in spite of the repeated attempts of the plaintiff to have an early disposal of the application for temporary injunction. THE plaintiff on 211971 filed an application to restrain the respondents from obstructing him in harvesting the crops in the plaint property or to appoint a receiver to take the crops. THE respondents filed a statement on 611971 under S. 3 of Act 20 of 1970 for staying the suit. THE learned Munsiff passed an order staying the suit and the Civil Revision petition is directed against that order. S. 3 of Act 20 of 1970 reads thus: "3 (1 ). . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, where in any suit or proceedings in respect of any application or appeal or revision or review or proceedings in execution of any decree cr order (including proceedings incidental or ancillary thereto) or ether proceedings, in respect of any land, pending before any court or Land Tribunal or appellate authority or other authority or officer at the commencement of this Act, or instituted or filed or initiated after such commencement, any party thereto has filed or files a statement in writing that be was in occupation of such land at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and (a) that such land is situate in Malabar and that he or bis predecessor-in-interest was continuously is occupation of such land honestly believing himself to be a tenant for rot less than two years within a period of twelve years immediately preceding the 11th day of April, 1967; or (b) that such occupation was on the basis of a registered deed purporting to be a lease deed and that he or his predecessor-in- interest was in occupation of such land on the 11th day of April, 1957. on the basis of that deed, the court or Land Tribunal or appellate authority or other authority or officer, as the case may be, shall not proceed with that suit, appeal, revision, review or other proceedings, as the case may be. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in "any case where the party who has filed or files the statement referred to in that sub-section is admitted to be a tenant of the land to which that statement relates. " THE submission on behalf of the respondents was that the requirement of S. 3 (1) of Act 20 of 1970 is satisfied the moment a party files the statement contemplated therein and no question of bona fides or of prima facie case will arise. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the object of S. 3 (1) of Act 20 of 1970 is only to prevent the eviction of persons referred to in S. 7 and S. 7b (i) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 which have been struck down by this Court and though S. 3 (1) of Act 20 of 1970 is wide in its terms, its ambit will have to be restricted to apply only to those cases. We shall now examine the rival contentions. THE preamble of the Act shows that it is intended for the stay of suits and other proceedings, for determination of rights in respect of lands occupied by certain classes of persons, for the temporary protection of tenants against proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent and for matters incidental thereto. In this connection it will not be out of place if we remember the reason for passing Act 20 of 1970. S. 7 and S. 7b (1)of the Kerala land Reforms Act, 1963 amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 were in these terms: 7. Certain persons occupying land honestly believing to be tenants, to be deemed tenants. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S. 52 or any other provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court any person in occupation at the commencement of the kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, of the land of another situate in malabar shall be deemed to be a tenant if he or his predecessor-in-interest was continuously in occupation of such land honestly believing himself to be a tenant for not less than two years within a period of twelve years immediately preceding the 11th day of April, 1957. Explanation. Notwithstanding anything contained in the indian Evidence Act, 1872, where a person has been continuously in occupation of any such land for two years within the said period of twelve years, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that he has been in such occupation honestly believing himself to be a tenant. " 7b. Certain persons occupying lands under leases granted by incompetent persons to be deemed tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, any person in occupation of the land of another at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, on the basis of a registered deed purporting to be a lease deed, shall be deemed to be a tenant if he or his predecessor-in-interest was in occupation of such land on the 11th day of April, 1957, on the basis of that deed notwithstanding the fact that the lease was granted by a person who had no right over the land or who was not competent to lease the land. " This Court in Chami Chettiar v. Thinmadham Knnnu bhagavathi Devaswom, (1970 KLT. 897) rendered on 21st October, 1970 declared that S. 7and 7b (1) are unconstitutional Act 20 of 1970 was the result of the above decision. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the bill it is stated as follows: "a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court by its majority judgment rendered in A. S. 116 of 1964 on the 21st October, 1970, invalidated S. 7 and sub-section (1) of S. 7b of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which sought to deem certain categories of cultivators as tenants. Steps are being taken to file an appeal against that judgment also in the Supreme Court, Pending decision of the Supreme Court, it is proposed to give temporary protection to such cultivators by staying all suits and other proceedings for the determination of the rights in respect of the lands occupied by them. " It is thus seen that the legislature intended to give temporary protection to the cultivators mentioned in the provisions extracted above by staying suits and other proceedings in respect of lands occupied by them. Counsel for the petitioner wants to interpret S. 3 (1) of Act 20 of 1970 so as to give protection only to cultivators occupying the land. THE learned counsel relied on the following observations of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, twelfth edition, at page 109: