M V KRISHNA IYER Vs. C ROYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein filed an application in Form I under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, Act 40 of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming Kudiyiruppu patta for an extent of 17' by 40' in Door No. 16, T.S No. 1969. Thoppu Street, Kumbakonam Town. It is not in dispute that the house in question is part of a row of three houses and it being the middle portion. THE first respondent was in occupation of this portion of the row houses, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20/. Claiming to be an agriculturist entitled to Kudiyiruppu patta, he gave evidence to the effect that he is occupying the petition mentioned house owned by the respondent (Petitioner herein) on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. excluding electricity charges. THE Authorised Officer, by his order dated 2-1-1981, rejected this application of the first respondent herein observing that since it is admitted on both sides that the petition mentioned property is a big tiled house with three portions, owned by the petitioner herein and the three portions have been given on rent to three different persons, one portion of which is given to the first respondent herein, it is clear that the first respondent herein is only a tenant of a portion of a tiled house and not a tenant of a mere site. It was held that since according to S. 2 (8) of the Act, Kudiyiruppu means the site of any dwelling house or hut occupied by an agriculturist or agricultural labourer, either as a tenant or as a licensee, the first respondent herein is not entitled to Kudiyiruppu patta because no record has been produced to show that he is a tenant or a licensee of the site. THE first respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Kumba-konam, and in the grounds of appeal, he contended that he is entitled to patta under S. 3(2) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the superstructure belongs to the petitioner herein. In the counter filed by the petitioner herein before the Sub Collector, a stand was taken that what was leased out to the first respondent herein was not merely a site. THE Sub-Collector, by his order dated 12-8-1981, allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent herein, holding that the site has been given on rent to him for the last 20 or 25 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-and that he being an agriculturist is entitled to patta under the Act. In this Writ Petition challenging the correctness of the order of the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed by the first respondent herein under the Act is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. He would submit that even if the first respondent were to be proved to be an agriculturist, nonetheless in so far as what was leased out to the first respondent was not merely a site, but site and building, the provisions of the Act are not attracted and no relief under the Act could be given to the first respondent.

(2.) THE object of the Act is to provide for the conferment of ownership rights on occupants of Kudiyiruppu in the State of Tamil Nadu THE term ?Kudiyiruppu? is defined in S. 2(6) as follows:? ?? ?Kudiyiruppu? means the site of any dwelling house or hut occupied either as a tenant or as licensee by any agriculurist or agricultural labourer and include such other area adjacent to the dwelling house or hut as may by necessary, for the convenient enjoyment of such dwelling house or hut? (THE word ?tenant? is defined in S. 2(7) as follows:? ?tenant? means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed by another to enjoy the land of the latter under a tenancy agreement, express or implied and includes his heirs and legal representatives.? A close reading of the definition of ?Kudi-yiruppa? would indubitably show that it means only the site on which a dwelling house or hut might have been constructed and occupied. That site should have been let out either on terms of tenancy or on terms of licence to an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer. Such person would be entitled to patta under the Act not only to the site on which the building had been put up but also such other adjacent area as may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the house or the hut put up thereon THE act is intended to protect only such of those persons who were in occupation of the area as on 19-6-1971. THE word ?area? occuring in the second Explanation to S. 28) would have reference only to the site leased out. THE definition of a ?tenant? occuring in S. 2(ll) would also indicate that only tenants of the land which has been demised are intended to be benefitted. However, S. 3(2) contemplates a slightly different situation where a person is found to be in o ccupation of a kudiyiruppu, viz., the site along with the superstructure built thereon, whicb superstructure has been built by himself or by a third person. Sub-S (2) of S (3) contemplates the vesting of such superstructure also in the occupant absolutely free from all encumbrances.

(3.) FOLLOWING the ratio of the above decisions, it has to be held on the admitted facts in this case that the first respondent, who claims to be a lessee of both the building and the site belonging to the petitioner herein, is not entitled to the benefit of the Act and the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the orders of the Authorised Officer cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.