JACOB Vs. SUBRAMONIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner claims to be a lessee of the suit properties, under a receiver appointed by court, who cultivated them in the year 1134, M. E. When the receiver advertised for making fresh arrangements for the cultivation of the properties in the year 1135 M. E., the petitioner contended, that he cannot be evicted, by reason of S.4 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957, which may hereafter be referred to

(2.) The relevant part of S.4 of the Act is in these terms:-

(3.) An arrangement of the kind entered into by the petitioner for the cultivation of properties under a court receiver is called a lease in some districts; in others, it is described or referred to as a sale by auction, where auction is held, of the right to collect the usufructs of the properties for a specified period, generally one year, and in some others, as a mere licence. But the terms lease and sale are used only in a general and loose way. The text-books also make mention of leases by receivers under orders of court. All this, however, is without reference to the definition of holding, which is a new concept introduced into the Act and into some other enactments in the State of a similar nature. It seems to us, that unless a transaction falls strictly within the definition of a holding in the Act, S.4 cannot be made applicable, to it. A similar view was taken by this court in Rajappa Pillai v. Ponnammal, 1958 KLT 844 where in repelling the argument, that the Act does not prescribe, that the lease should be by a person having an interest in the property, T.K. Joseph J. observed as follows:-