KATHIRATH VELU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment delivered by Viswanatha Iyer, J.-- This case has been referred to a larger Full Bench as the correctness of the Full Bench decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. Kunhikrishnan ( 1977 KLT 180 ) has come up for consideration in this case. The simple facts are these. In 1952 the karnavan of the second respondent herein, executed a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and put him in possession of the property comprised in it. But this lease deed was in contravention of the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act and was held to be invalid and without bona fides in a suit filed by the second respondent and others for partition of this property and other properties of the tarward. Following this the second respondent to whom the property was allotted in the final decree for partition applied for and took delivery of the property on 21st July 1966. After the passing of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Act 35 of 1969) the petitioner filed an application under S.13A of the Act before the Land Tribunal alleging that he is a deemed tenant under S.7B of the Act and entitled to restoration of possession from the second respondent. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal upholding the objection of the second respondent that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of S.7B to become a deemed tenant. On appeal by the petitioner this order of the Land Tribunal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is against this the revision petition has been filed.

(2.) On behalf of the revision petitioner it is contended that the subordinate tribunals have gone wrong in their view that the petitioner, not having had possession on 1st January 1970, the date of the amendment of Act 35 of 1969, is not a tenant under S.7B to get restoration of possession under S.13A of the Act. What is contended for is that if a person who would have been a tenant under the amended Act is dispossessed after 1964 he is entitled to restoration and for this the qualification to be a tenant under the Amended Act has to be deemed satisfied on the date of dispossession.

(3.) Uninhibited by the decisions to which our attention has been invited the matter may be examined in the light of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to find out whether this contention is right. S.13A of the Land Reforms Act provides that where any person has been dispossessed of the land in his occupation on or after the 1st day of April 1964, such person shall, if he would have been a tenant under this Act as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, at the time of such dispossession, be entitled to restoration of possession of the land. The forum for granting relief is, under S.13A(2), the Land Tribunal. The above section requires two conditions to be satisfied by a person who asks for restoration of possession. Firstly he must have been dispossessed of the land in his occupation on or after 1st April 1964 and secondly such person would have been a tenant under the Act as amended at the time of such dispossession. In this case the first condition is satisfied because he was dispossessed only on 21st July 1966. But would he have been a tenant on that date under the Amended Act The only provision relied on in this respect is S.7B(1) which is in the following terms:--