VELUKUTTY Vs. NEELAKANTAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which these proceedings have arisen was by the respondent -landlord,to recover property from the appellant -tenant,with arrears of rent.A con­ditional decree was passed on the 24th December,1953,the relevant part of which is in the following terms:" That the 1st defendant do deposit in Court a sum of Rs.1,615 -3 -0 being the balance of future rent for 1128(1952 -53)and 1129(1953 -54)and a sum of Rs.192 -8 -0 being the costs of the suit with interest at 5 1/2per cent per annum from this date to the date of payment,on or before 24th May 1954,and that on such deposit being made,the suit do stand dismissed.

(2.) THAT in case,the deposit as aforesaid is not made,the 1st defendant do surrender and put the plaintiff in quiet and peace­ful possession of the plaint property with all improvements therein and free from all encumbrances created by him or any person claiming under him.

(3.) THE Madras Indebted Agriculturists(Temporary Relief)Act,1954(Act V of 1954)which came into force on the 5th February,1954,had by section 3,imposed a bar on the institution of suits and of applications for execution of decrees for the payment of money passed in suits for recovery of debts.That Act was superseded by the Madras Indebted Agriculturists(Repayment)of Debts Act,1955(Act I of 1935)with effect from the 1st March,1955,and it is principally with its provisions,that this appeal is concerned.This Act has by section 2( b ),defined the term ˜debt ™as, Any liability in cash or kind,whether secured or unsecured,due from an agriculturist on the 1st October,1953 whether pay­able under a contract or decree or order of a Court,Civil or Reve­nue or otherwise ;, subject to exclusions of certain categories of liabilities.It is the admitted case of both parties,that only a sum of Rs.710 As.11 out of the sum of Rs.1,615 As.3 decreed came within the definition of debt.The respondent filed an execution petition on the 15th December,1955,for eviction of the appellant relying on clause(2)of the extract of the decree made above,which has been referred to by the courts below and in argument of counsel,as a forfeiture clause,and without notice to the appellant,the property was delivered to the respondent.The appellant afterwards made an application to the execution court for redelivery of possession to him,on the ground that the delivery of possession from him was illegal in view of the provisions of Act I of 1955.While recognising,that part of the decree amount came within the definition of ˜debt ™as defined in the Act,the two courts below have rejected the application on the ground,that the provisions of the Act have no impact whatever on the forfeiture clause in the decree,which must therefore be given,full scope and effect according to its apparent tenor.In second appeal,the appellant has challenged the correctness of this view and I am inclined to think that there is great force in his contention. Section 4(1)of Act I of 1955 has conferred a right on an agriculturist debtor to discharge a debt as defined due from him,in instalments.It reads as follows:"