K NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether S.4 of Act 20 of 1970 applies only to arrears of rent due from a tenant to a landlord and whether the relationship of landlord and tenant should be subsisting on the date on which the application for stay was filed under S.4. The facts of this case show that the suit was filed for an amount alleged to be due under an oral karar but that it was subsequently held that the amount due under the karar represented arrears of rent due by a tenant to the landlord in respect of his holding. The contention raised by the plaintiff petitioner before the lower Court was that the arrears of rent had subsequently been assigned by the landlord to a stranger and the tenant's right has also been assigned to a stranger and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant no longer subsists and S.4 has no application to such a case. This contention was negative by the Court below and it is the correctness of this decision that is now challenged before me.

(2.) A reading of S.4 clearly shows that the legislature did not contemplate the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of the application as the word "tenant" or "landlord" has not been used in S.4 at all. All that S.4 contemplates is that proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a holding or part of a holding accrued due before the 1st day of May, 1968 should not be proceeded with and should be stayed. It is nowhere mentioned, nor can be read into the provisions such an indication that the relationship of landlord and tenant should be subsisting on the date on which the application under S.4 is filed. It is sufficient if the proceedings are for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a holding. The contention raised by the petitioner is that because the word "holding" has been used, there should be the existence of a holding on the date of the application under S 4 and, therefore, the order of the lower Court staying the proceedings is illegal. I find no force in this contention.

(3.) S.4(a), on a fair reading, can be interpreted as to mean only that the arrears of rent should have accrued in respect of a holding on the date the rent accrued due. It does not mean that the holding should subsist and the relationship of landlord and tenant should also subsist on the date the application for stay has been filed. It is conceded by both sides that the arrears of rent in respect of which the claim is now filed accrued due in respect of a holding as between a tenant and landlord and that is sufficient so far as S.4 is concerned.