RAHILA BEEVI Vs. INDIRA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The Suit for redemption was dismissed by the trial Court finding that the defendants are entitled to the benefits under Section 4A (1) (b) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That finding has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Contention of the plaintiff is that in view, of the absence of evidence that it was the mortgagee who constructed the building in the property and also In view of the lack of evidence that the building was in existence 20 years Immediately preceding the commencement of the Act the Courts below were not justified In dismissing the salt. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the evidence of P. W. 2 Kamalaslni (mortgagee) examined before the Land Tribunal where the matter was referred under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act would show that it was her husband who spent the money for construction of the building and as she has admitted that she did not spend any money it cannot be held that this is a case where Section 4A (1) (b) can be invoked. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the Act has to be construed In such a manner to give effect to the beneficial provisions of deemed tenancy and merely because P.W. 2's husband has constructed the building iv cannot be held that they are not entitled to the protection under, Section 4 A (I) (b) of the Act.

(2.) SECTION 4A confers deemed tenancy status to certain set of mortgagees. If a mortgagee or a lessee hat constructed a building for his own residence in the land comprised in the mortgage and if he was occupying such building for such purpose for a continuous period of 'not less than twenty years Immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, he becomes a deemed tenant entitled to the benefits under the Act. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as there can be a separate right with respect to land and building, the building constructed on the mortgaged property by P,W. 2's husband cannot be taken into consideration under Section 4 A(1)(b) of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 4A(1) (b) cannot be read in isolation. The proviso to it is to the effect that a mortgagee will not be deemed to be a tenant if he or where he it a number of a family such family was holding any other land exceeding two acres la extent on the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968 in the Gazette. This would indicate that the statute has given due recognition to the family as well. In a case where a mortgages has constructed a building for his own residential purpose and if he is a member of the family having more than two acres of land, ho would not be entitled to the benefit of deemed tenancy. The proviso it an Indicative factor to hold that a narrow Interpretation cannot be given while construing Section 4A(1)(b).