KORADA APPALA SAYANNA Vs. SRI MAHARAJA OF PARLAKIMEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this revision are simple. The Maharajah of Parlakimedi filed a suit on 15th November 1946 for recovery of rent under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. The Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946, which provides for the temporary protection of certain class of tenants and ryots in the Province of Madras, became law on 4th October 1946. The tenant made a deposit of the rent on 6th January 1947, that is more than two months after the commencement of the Act. He applied for stay of trial of the suit under the said Act. The lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the deposit was made after the prescribed time. The tenant filed the above revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Suryaprakasam, contended that, on a proper construction of the provisions of Act, the payment of rent by his client is not a condition precedent for obtaining stay. The relevant provisions of the Act may be extracted :

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel is that Sub-section (2), Section 4 does not apply to a suit for recovery of rent and that therefore the tenant need not deposit the amount under Sub-section (2), Clauses (i) and (ii) as the case may be. In regard to Sub-section (3), his argument is that the said sub-section applies only to proceedings after decree or order and in any view the word "proceeding" could not include suit. If his argument is accepted, the result would be that in the case of suits for recovery of rents, the tenant would be entitled to a stay indefinitely without any liability on his part to deposit rent in Court. This would be contrary to the clear intention of the Legislature and would cause great prejudice to the landholder.