RETHINAM AND OTHERS Vs. KUPPUSWAMI ODAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court, Thanjavur, on an application filed by the respondent herein under S. 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 25 of 1955, and Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1956. According to the case of the respondent, the father of the petitioners cultivated an extent of 1 acre and 69 cents of land belonging to the respondent, agreeing to measure 29 kalams in kuruvai and 27 kalams in Thaladi besides 10 bundles of straw and two fifth share in the catch crop every year, being the fair rent fixed by the Revenue Court in P. R. No. 366 of 1979. The further case of the respondent was that after the death of the father of the petitioners, the petitioners continued to hold over on the same terms and conditions, but that the petitioners had left the lands fallow in fasli 1386 and 1387 and, therefore, they had rendered themselves liable to be evicted on the ground that they had ceased to cultivate the land and that the petitioners were also guilty of acts injurious to the land.

(2.) THIS application was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that the second crop was not raised in one year as a notification was issued by the Government that such crop should not be raised as the Government could not undertake the responsibility for the supply of water for irrigation owing to failure of monsoon and other adverse seasonal conditions. As regards the other fasli, the petitioners stated that owing to breaches which resulted in inundation of more than 60 to 70 acres in the village, the lands were rendered incapable of cultivation and, therefore, the petitioners pleaded that due to reasons beyond their control, the lands could not be cultivated which could not be taken advantage of by the respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that though the evidence in this case disclosed the non -raising of two crops in all the lands in question, this would not fall within the expression 'has altogether ceased to cultivate the land'. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the documentary evidence clearly discloses failure on the part of the petitioners to cultivate two crops and having regard to the nature of the lands, the omission on the part of the petitioners to cultivate two crops would be included within the expression 'has altogether ceased to cultivate the land'. Under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, before a landlord can secure an order for eviction on the ground that the tenant has altogether ceased to cultivate the land, it is necessary that a total abandonment of cultivation by the tenant should be established and the omission to cultivate one crop in the lands in question, as in this case, would not amount to 'altogether ceasing to cultivate' which would justify the passing of an order for eviction on this ground. The use of the word 'altogether' in Action 3 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, has a definite connotation in the sense of 'whole' 'thoroughly' 'completely' or 'as a whole', and the cessation of cultivation contemplated must be a total and complete and for a definite period. The mere omission, as in the instant case, to raise one crop would not, on the basis of the language employed in the section, be taken to include cessation of cultivation as envisaged in the statutory provision. Under the circumstances, the respondent cannot take advantage of the omission on the part of the petitioners to raise one crop in a double crop land as tantamount to cesser of cultivation which would justify the passing of an order for eviction against the petitioners.