KATHAPERUMAL PADAYACHI Vs. MUTHIAH ODAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition which arises out of proceedings instituted by the petitioner for restoration of possession under Section 4(5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) comes up before this Bench in view of the inconsistency between the judgment of Veeraswami, J. in C.R.P. No. 322 of 1960 and certain observations contained in Ganapati Iyer V. Ayyakannu,1961 1 MadLJ 217.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to the application are not in dispute. The Dharmapura Adheenam in its capacity as trustee of Sri Sattanathaswami Devasthanam had leased out about 86 acres of land in Annavasal in Tanjore District to the respondent. Except in regard to specified extent of land, there was no prohibition against the respondent sub-leasing the properties to actual cultivators. In October, 1951, the respondent, had sublet an extent of 5.66 acres of land to the petitioner at a specified rent. The lease obtained by the respondent from the Adheenam expired in June, 1953. In that month the trustee put up in auction the leasehold right in the lands for the next five years ending with 30th June, 1958. The conditions of the auction made it clear that the lease was subject to such rights as the cultivating tenants In the land might have by virtue of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Act, 1952. The respondent became the successful bidder at the auction. He executed a formal agreement in favour the trustee embodying a number of conditions and undertaking to vacate the land at the end of the term. The petitioner who was let into possession in 1951 under the sub-lease referred to above, continued in possession of the property. He paid the rents regularly till fasli 1366. Sometime earlier, that is, on 26th April, 1956, the trustee, namely, the head lessor, issued a notice Exhibit P-4 to him (the sub-tenant) terminating the tenancy as and from 30th April, 1957. the notice which is in a printed form acknowledged that the petitioner had obtained rights under the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Act and it intimated that on the expiry of that enactment his rights would cease. Although under the ordinary law there is no privity of contract between a sub-tenant and the head lessor, the latter in the instant case had to recognise the rights of the former as under the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Act, a sub-tenant wouldhavea statutory right to continue in possession even as against the head lessor. This was the view taken by this Court, in Sereng Abdul Khadir V. Rajagopala Pandaraya,1959 1 MadLJ 34. The circumstance that the head lessor in the instant case issued a nptice to the sub-tenant in the manner stated above cannot however by itself create any contractual relationship between the two. The Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal (Protection) Act has now been replaced by the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, except in regard pannaiyals. The petitioner fell into arrears of rent with respect to faslis 1366 and 1367. Thereupon the respondent filed an application before the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam, in Petition No. 1186 of 1958 praying for eviction of the petitioner. The Court dismissed his application by its order dated 13th February, 1959, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application against the petitioner who was a sub-tenant and as such could not be said to be a cultivating tenant. The conclusion in that case was based on a decision of this Court in Ramaswami Naidu V. Maradaveera Moopan,1959 1 MadLJ 25 where it was held that a sub-tenant deriving title through the tenant of a landlord could not be regarded as a cultivating tenant of the landlord. It will be seen that that decision would not apply to a case where the main or chief tenant seeks to evict his own tenant, namely the sub-tenant. There was therefore an obvious confusion on the part of the Revenue Court when it declined to exercise its jurisdiction; for while a sub-tenant who has a privity of contract only with his immediate lessor, namely, the chief tenant and has no privity either of contract or estate with the landlord cannot be a cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, it might be possible that he could be regarded as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act of the chief tenant, his immediate lessor.

(3.) On the dismissal of the application for eviction, the petitioner continued in possession of the land. Alleging that he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondent sometime during the first week of July, 1959, he filed the application out of which the present proceedings arise for restoration of possession. This he would be entitled to under Section 4(5) of the Act which confers the right on a cultivating tenant who had been evicted otherwise than by adopting the procedure prescribed by the Act to apply within two months from the date of such eviction for restoration to him of the possession of the lands which he, prior to the eviction, was in occupation. The Revenue Court rejected his application on the ground that the subtenant would not be a cultivating tenant who would be entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Section 4(5). It further held that the head lessor not having been made a party to the petition, no relief could be granted to the petitioner on Ms application-. The correctness of that order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Revision Petition.