SRIRANGAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. V NATARAJA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that comes up for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether the plaintiff in O. S. No. 548 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, tiruchirapalli, is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefit of the Madras cultivating Tenants Protection Act.

(2.) THE respondent herein took on lease from the Srirangam Municipality, the appellant herein, 7 acres of sewage farm in Coleroon road, Vellithirumutham village in 1960 for a period of 3 years in a public auction held for the purpose. The lease was also renewed for a further period of 3 years from 1-4-1963. As the lease in favour of the respondent expired on 31-3-1966, there was a fresh auction for the lease of the sewage farm on 19-3-1966 and one Rahmatullah was the highest bidder for Rs. 26001, and the respondent was the next highest bidder for Rs. 25716. The municipality passed a resolution on 22-3-1966 accepting the second highest bid of the respondent for Rs. 25716 without assigning any reason for rejecting the highest bid of Rupees 26001. The Collector of Tiruchirapalli acting under Section 34 (2) of the Madras District municipalities Act directed the Commissioner by his Memo dated 22-8-1966 not to give effect to the resolution of the municipality dated 22-3-1966. Thereafter the municipality held a special meeting on 7-5-1966 and resolved to cancel the resolution dated 22-3-1966 and to conduct a re-auction of the lease of the sewage farm. At that stage the respondent filed W. P. 1277 and 11278 of 1966 to quash the resolutions passed by the Municipality cancelling its earlier resolution and proposing the re-auction. In those writ petitions he sought an interim order directing the Municipality not to re-auction and not to dispossess the respondent from the sewage farm. This court, though at the first instance granted an ex parte order of stay on 12-5-1966. vacated the same after contest on 31-5-1966. Thereafter the respondent filed the suit for an injunction restraining the municipality from interfering with his possession on the ground that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of Madras Act 25 of 1955 in respect of the sewage farm. The defendant Municipality resisted the suit contending that the respondent has been given only a licence to cut and remove the guinea grass grown in the sewage farm, that he cannot claim to be a lessee of the sewage farm as he had no exclusive possession, that raising of guinea grass cannot be said to be agriculture, and that, in any event, he cannot claim to be a cultivating tenant as defined in madras Act 25 of 1955. It also contended that the respondent had not been in possession of the sewage farm, on the date of the suit and that, therefore, he is not entitled to the injunction prayed for by him. It was further contended that the respondent having bid at the auction held on 19-3-1966 subject to the terms and conditions of the auction notification and having asserted his rights as a bidder at that auction, in the writ proceedings is estopped from contending that he is entitled to be in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant of the sewage farm and that as such he is entitled to the benefits of Madras Act 25 of 1955. The trial court also found the plaintiffs to be in possession of the property on the date of the suit. The lower appellate Court also agreed with the view taken by the trial court. It is for consideration whether the concurrent view taken by the courts below is correct.