NARAYANAN NAMBUDRIPAD Vs. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me filed the application No. 204 of 1947 on the file of the District Court of South Malabar for staying A. S. No. 345/46 under Act XVII of 1946. THE rent due according to the plaintiff was 1099 paras and 2 edangalis of paddy for Kanni. But the respondent deposited the value of only 999 paras and 3 edangalis of paddy. It is sai5 that the difference represents deduction at one per ten on account of shrinkage. THE lower Court found that the amount deposited by the respondent was the rent payable by him according to the finding of the first Court. THE petitioner is no doubt questioning that finding in the appeal, Mr. Variar contended before me that the respondent should have deposited the rent in accordance with the claim made by his client in the appeal, and as he had only deposited the amount as found by the first Court he would not be entitled to stay under the Act. Pend- ing the revision Madras Act XXIV of 1940 was enacted and it is agreed that the provisions of that Act governed the question to be decided in this case. THE relevant provision may be read: "Section 4(1). 'All suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings (a) for the eviction of tenants from their holdings or land as the case may be, or in which a claim for 'such eviction is involved, whether in addition to a claim for rent or not, or (b) in which the sale of the holding of a tenant or ryot for recovery of rent is claimed and which stood stayed up to the commencement of this Act or which may be instituted after such commencement in any Civil or Revenue Court, shall continue to stand stayed or shall stand stayed as the case may be, subject to the provisions of the following sub-sections." THE section as originally enacted did not provide for any reat being deposited as a condition precedent for granting of stay. So Act VIII of 1950 was passed and under Section 3 of the Act 2-A was introduced after Sub-section 2 to Section 4 of Act XXIV of 1949. Under that sub-section, "In the case of a suit or proceeding for the sale of a holding to recover rent, or of a pro ceeding in execution of a decree or order obtained in any such suit or proceeding or of a proceeding in execution of a decree or order for eviction, where the decree or order provides for the payment of rent (i) if the suit or proceeding was instituted before the commencement of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection (Amendment) Act, 1950 and no deposit has been made in pursuance of Section 4, Sub-section (3) of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1946, the tenant or ryot shall deposit in Court for pay ment to the landlord, within two months from such commencement, (a) the amount claimed in the suit or proceeding or the amount pay able under the decree or order, or (b) the rent for two years immediately preceding such commencement, whichever is less, or (ii) if the suit or proceeding is instituted after such commencement, the tenant or ryot shall deposit in Court for payment to the landlord, within two months from the date on which notice of the suit or pro ceeding is served on him by the Court (which service shall be the duty of the Court), (a) the amount claimed in the suit or proceeding or the amount payable under the decree or order, or (b) the rent for two years immediately preceding the date as afore said whichever is less, together with such interest as may be payable under law, custom, or agreement up to the date of deposit." A combined reading of these provisions shows that in the case of an appeal in which the sale of the holding of the tenant or the right for recovery of rent is claimed, the res pondent would be entitled to a stay if within two months from the commencement of that appeal, the amount claimed in the suit or the rent for two years immediately preceding such commencement, whichever is less, is deposit ed in Court. Mr. Variar raised two points be fore me. (1) Section 4 (1) (b) has no application as his client is not seeking sale of the holding in regard to which rent is payable. (2) That the respondent to be entitled to relief under the Act must pay two years' rent as claimed in the appeal. THEre is considerable force in the first contention advanced by him but the words are wide enough to take in the sale of holding though the rent is not due in res-pect of that holding but in respect of a different holding. Further the intention of the legislature in enacting in quick succession so many Acts is to provide relief to tenants so that their holdings may not be sold before the contemplated Tenancy Legislation becomes law. If that is the intention there cannot be distinction on principle between the sate of the holding for rent payable in respect of the holding and for the recovery of rent payable in respect of a different holding In either case the holding of the tenant would be lost to him before the legislature brought in the contemplated legislation. In the circumstances I am inclined to put upon the words used in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 a wider interpretation which would bring within their scope a sale of a holding for rent due in respect of a different holding. I cannot also agree with his second contention. Under Act XVII of 1946 Section 4 (2) (i) says that :

(2.) IN the result the order of the lower Court is correct and the revision is dismissed without costs here.