AMMAD Vs. KUNHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short and interesting question regarding the interpretation of S.53 of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act XXXIII of 1951 comes up for consideration in this case. The admitted relevant facts may be stated.

(2.) The plaintiff - appellant obtained a melcharth with arrears of rent; and he filed a suit for the arrears of rent for 1111 to 1121. While the suit was pending, the tenant respondents deposited the rent for 1120 to 1128. The question for consideration is whether such deposit would wipe out the previous arrears as contemplated by S.53.

(3.) The Trial Court followed the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Manayil Krishnan Kutty v. Manikkath Govinda Menon (69 Law Weekly 433). Govinda Menon J., who spoke for the Court, observed in the said ruling that since Act XXXIII of 1951 was prospective, all payments contemplated by S.53 should be made after the commencement of the Act and before the twelve months mentioned in that section. In other words, the learned Judge said that for giving benefit under S.53 payments made prior to the commencement of Act XXXIII of 1951 should not be taken into consideration. The lower appellate court held that after the amendment of S.53 by S.6 of Act XXII of 1956 the position was different: it held that the payment of rent for 1120 to 1128 wiped out the previous arrears.