LAKSHMI AMMA Vs. KUNKICHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four second appeals by four landlords have been referred to a division bench and they raise certain common questions. Broadly stated, the facts in these appeals are of the same pattern. They arise out of four suits instituted by four landlords against their respective tenants or alleged tenants, for eviction from their holdings under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, which was then in force. In them, decrees were passed for eviction which were followed by delivery of possession pending appeals from such decrees by the tenants. The appeals were disposed of by the lower appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, Act 4 of 1961, setting aside the decrees for eviction.

(2.) Act 4 of 1961 having been declared to be void, the disposal of the appeals by the lower courts cannot be maintained. The first question raised is whether these appeals have to be disposed of in accordance with the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, or with the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act 1 of 1964, which is now in force. S.132(1)(a) of Act 1 of 1964 reads thus:

(3.) The language of S.5 was also contrasted by learned counsel with the enumeration in the latter part of S.132(1)(a), viz., "all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of decrees". The corresponding provision in S.95(2)(a) of Act 4 of 1961 was more or less on the same lines as S.132(1)(a), the reference being to Act 1 of 1957 instead of to Act 7 of 1963 for obvious reasons. These words, "all suits, appeals ... stayed by the said enactments" are by themselves clear and conclusive, that the enactments referred to apply to appeals also. We entertain no doubt, that under S.5 of Act 7 of 1963, the second appeals were liable to be stayed. Learned counsel had also another argument, that the tenant ceased to be a tenant, because he had been deprived of possession of his holding in execution of the decree of the Trial Court pending the appeal from that decree. The subsistence of a tenancy cannot be made to depend on such a process in execution, liable in certain events to the reverse process by way of restitution, the decree itself not having become final. We hold that S.132(1)(a) of Act 1 of 1964, is applicable to these appeals.