C. RAJAMMAL Vs. V.P. CHINNAKANNU AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner owns an extent of 4.26 acres of wet land in Thodaneri village in Madurai district. The lands were held on lease by the respondent at a rent of 40 bags of paddy, each bag measuring 48 Madras measures, and some bundles of hay per year. The respondent is stated to be in possession of 20 acres of land, either as owner or as tenant, in addition to the 4.26 acres belonging to the petitioner. There can be no doubt that, comparatively speaking, the tenant is in more affluent circumstances than the landlord. The petitioner filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, under Section 4A(2) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Act XXV of 1955) for permission to resume for personal cultivation half the property leased to the respondent. The latter countered the application by offering to pay one -half of the contractual rent (as the rent stood on 27th September, 1955) for the property sought to be resumed. This was under Section 4A(3). The offer in the circumstances of this case is a meaningless one,. for the respondent would always be bound to pay the contractual rent. It is not the case of the respondent that the rent as it stood on 27th September, 1955 was higher than the rent payable on the date of application so that it can be said that the landlord would obtain something as quid pro quo for being deprived of the statutory right conferred on her under the provisions of Section 4 -A(1) of the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act. The provisions of the Fair Rent Act (XXIV of 1956) do not apply to the respondent, as he has been enjoying more than 6 2/3 acres of wet lands at all material times. No question of the respondent being entitled to pay only fair rent arises in the case. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the provisions of Section 4A(3) of the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act were mandatory and that the landlord would not be entitled to resume possession of half the land when once the tenant offered to pay the contractual rent therefore. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has. filed this Revision Petition.

(2.) THE question that arises for determination in this case depends on the construction to be given to Section 4A, Sub -clauses (1) and (3) I shall set out the provisions of those sub clauses and also indicate briefly the provisions contained in the other sub -clauses of the section.

(3.) SECTION 4 -A(1) reads: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, a landlord shall be entitled to resume possession from any cultivating tenant possession for purposes of personal cultivation of lands not exceeding one half of the extent of lands leased out to the cultivating tenant. Sub -section (2) provides the machinery for enforcing the right declared in Sub -section (1). It enables the landlord desiring to resume any land under that provision to apply to the Revenue Divisional Officers for appropriate direction to the tenant; the Revenue Divisional Officer will be competent to impose such conditions as may be just and reasonable while making an order under this sub -section Sub -section (3) states: