MUNIAN MUTHURAJA Vs. P.S. RAJARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceeding raises an interesting point under Section 4 -B of Act XXV of 1955 as amended by Act XIV of 1956. The facts are very simple. The revision petitioner is a lessee for a period of one year in respect of a cashewnut plantation. The landlord refused to execute a lease -deed as required by Section 4 -B of Act XXV of 1955, though the revision petitioner was admittedly not in arrears, and has actually deposited the advance amount due. The case of the landlord was not that the revision petitioner was in arrears and was therefore liable to be evicted, but that the revision petitioner was not a ' tenant' as defined under the Act, because the land was not taken on lease for the use of the land for the purpose of agriculture or horticulture as defined in Section 2(b). The argument here is that the revision petitioner took the land on lease for enjoyment of the usufruct in respect of the cashewnut plantation, and that this would not bring him within the definition of 'cultivating tenant' (Section 2(a) of the Act), which depends in its turn upon the definition of 'cultivation' under Section 2(b) of the Act. The learned Officer presiding over the Revenue Court, Tanjore, thought that this argument had substance, and hence dismissed the application as not maintainable.

(2.) I think that very little is needed to show that the view adopted by the Revenue Officer is erroneous. The matter has been fully dealt with by Ramaswami, J., in Chacko, In re1. The learned Judge observes as follows: