P T KAMALAKSHI AMMA Vs. M NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order passed on 1-2-1972 in proceedings under S.22 read with S.15 of Act 1 of 1964, the landlord was allowed to resume 50 cents of land from the tenant. The latter appealed, but did not succeed. When execution was taken out in E. P. No. 692/74, however, the tenant objected on the ground that value of improvements was not deposited in time and that the resumption order had consequently become inoperative The executing court overruled this objection, and hence the present revision by the tenant

(2.) The operative portion of the resumption order was in these terms:-

(3.) Since the petitioner's contention is mainly based on sub-sections (2), (3) and (8) of S.22 of the Act, I shall extract them: