ABDUL MAJEED Vs. VENKITA SUBRAMONYA DEERSHITHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Samsudheen alias Kuttimusaliar was a verumpattom tenant under one Anantharama Deekshithar. In execution of a decree obtained by the said landlord for sale of the holding for arrears of rent due by Samsudheen the rights of the said tenant were brought to sale in court auction and were purchased by the decree holder on 30-3-1964. Pursuant thereto the property was taken delivery of in execution by the decree holder and the tenant Samsudheen was thereby dispossessed from the holding in August 1964. After the coming into force of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1967 (Act 9 of 1967) which contained a provision entitling the erstwhile tenants, who had been dispossessed from their holdings after 1-4-1964 and before the commencement of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Ordinance, 1967 by reason of the holding having been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent, to restoration of possession, Samsudheen along with his son Abdul Majeed, who is the revision petitioner in both these civil revision petitions, filed E. A. No. 1505 of 1967 in the Munsiff's Court, Palghat seeking relief under the aforesaid section. The son Abdul Majeed had joined in the application as the 2nd petitioner on the ground that the father had transferred all his rights in his favour for valuable consideration and there was a prayer in the application by Samsudheen that in granting the relief that he was entitled to under S.6 of Act 9 of 196; the court may be pleased to direct the property to be delivered over to the 2nd petitioner namely, Abdul Majeed.

(2.) The above application appears to have been pending in the Munsiff's Court for quite a long time and in the interregnum Act 35 of 1969 also came into force whereby S.13B was newly introduced into the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) conferring a right on tenants who had been dispossessed of their holdings after 1st April, 1964 and before the commencement of the said Act by reason of the holdings have bean sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent to be restored to the possession of the holdings on the basis that the sale stand automatically set aside, provided that the persons so entitled to restoration complies with the requirements specified in sub-s.(2) thereof. On the coming into force of the said section by its introduction into the Act 1 of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969 a fresh application praying for the relief of restoration of the holding under the said section was filed before the lower court by Abdul Majeed the revision petitioner as E. A. No. 623 of 1970, the father Samsudheen having died by that time. The court below by a common order dated the 27th November, 1972 dismissed both the above applications. The main reason stated by the learned Munsiff for dismissing E. A. No. 1505 of 1967 is that the junction of the son Abdul Majeed as a copetitioner in that application is an incurable defect because he is not the tenant who was dispossessed from the holding but only an assignee of the said tenant who, according to the learned Munsiff, is not entitled to claim the benefit of S.6 of Act 9 of 1967. The further step in the reasoning of the lower court is that since the 1st petitioner had, while mentioning the reason for the junction of the 2nd petitioner, clearly submitted to the court that he had assigned away his right in favour of the 2nd petitioner the 1st petitioner had also ceased to have any locus standi to claim relief under S.6 and that the resultant position was that neither of the petitioners had the requisite competence to maintain the application. Another ground mentioned by the Munsiff for dismissing E. A. No. 1506 of 1967 is that though the petitioners have deposited the full amount required to be remitted under S.6 the said deposit had not been made unconditionally and it could not, therefore, be regarded as a valid compliance with the requirements of S.6.

(3.) As regards E. A. No. 623 of 1970 the Munsiff held that though the petitioner therein is a legal representative of the tenant Samsudheen who had been dispossessed from the holding, the right conferred under S.13B of Act 35 of 1969 can be availed of by any tenant who was actually dispossessed from the holding and will not be available to his legal representatives or his assignees Another reason mentioned by the learned Munsiff for rejecting E. A. No. 623 of 1970 is that there is no specific averments contained in the petition expressing the petitioner's readiness to deposit any amount that may be called upon by court to be deposited by him by way of costs.