SUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree holders appeal against an order the execution court made under Act I of 1957 staying the execution of the decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The decree is one passed in 1103 in a suit brought in 1102 on the basis of a lease back an usufructuary mortgagee granted to his mortgagors. The mortgage was in the sum of

(2.) Going by the language of the definition of the term Holding in the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act I of 1957) a lease back arrangement might perhaps come within its scope. That is what Eapen v. Narayana, AIR 1953 Travancore-Cochin 268- held with respect to a similar definition occurring in the Travancore-Cochin Holdings (Stay of Execution Proceedings) Act, 1950 (Act VIII of 1950) but comparing the preamble of the present Act with the preamble to Act VIII of 1950 we are afraid that decision cannot be applied to the present case.

(3.) The preamble to Act VIII of 1950 reads: Whereas it is deemed expedient to stay proceedings in execution of certain decrees in civil courts for eviction from holdings in Travancore; ............, but the present Act (Act I of 1957) opens with the words An Act to stay eviction of tenants, Kudi-kidappukars and certain other classes of persons cultivating land and its preamble reads:- Whereas it is necessary to take immediate action to provide for the temporary protection of tenants, Kudikidappukars and persons cultivating land on varam, Sambalapattam or other similar arrangements pending enactment of a comprehensive legislation relating to tenancy and agrarian reforms;. In view of the opening words of the later Act and its preamble we cannot for a moment hold that the legislature intended to apply the provisions of the Act to a transaction of the nature before us now, namely, where the decree holder in the course of his money-lending business lent money to business people who executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the lender and the latter gives the property back on lease to the mortgagors. Any legislation relating to tenancy and agrarian reforms cannot in our opinion affect such transactions and it will be therefore going beyond the legislative intent to extend the beneficent provisions in the Act to such transactions.