S KRISHNAMURTHY IYER Vs. RAMAIAH KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, whieh is directed against the order of the Revenue Court, tiruturai-poondi in P. No. 94 of 1981, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein praying for an order of eviction against the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of four items of properties in Survey nos. 278/6, 278/5, 297/2-A and 278/3, totalling to 4 acres and 43 cents and these lands had been leased out to the respondent herein for purposes of cultivation of paddy, subject to payment of rent at 67'kalams of paddy and an additional rent of 2 kalams per man for the second crop. According to the case of the petitioner, the lands are nanja lands irrigated by river water and that the lands had to be used only for agricultural purpose, but that contrary to this, the respondent had dug out a pond in a portion of the property leased and has also put up a samadhi for a cow and this, according to the petitioner, resulted in the conversion of nanja land into punja land. In addition, the petitioner also put forth the plea that the respondent had raised coconut trees in the land leased out for cultivation of paddy and had misused the land leased out to him and had also used the lands for non-agricultural purposes resulting in injury to the lands and also reduction in its value. A notice was sent by the petitioner demanding surrender of possession of the lands, but the respondent did not surrender the properties but had sent a reply containing false statements that these acts attributed to the respondent were done with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. THE petitioner stated that the stand taken by the respondent in his reply notice was false and unsustainable and that he had no right whatever to use the lauds for a different purpose and also cause injury to the leasehold property by his own acts and on these grounds prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent herein.

(2.) IN his counter, the respondent stated that there was not enough facility for kalam and, therefore, with the permission of the petitioner, a part of the lands leased adjoining the manaicut of the respondent was converted into a kalam and used as such. The respondent also stated that the petitioner suggested that coconut cultivation may be done in the ridges and that only with his permission, coconut trees had been reared in the ridges. The respondent admitted the digging of a pond in the lands leased out to him and stated that with the earth made available thereby, the kalam had been formed and that the water in the pond wag being used for the purpose of irrigating the coconut trees. The respondent claimed that the provision for a kalam and the raising of coconut trees were agricultural operations and they cannot be considered to be acts injurious to the land leased. The burying of a dead cow in a portion of the lands was admitted. But, the respondent denied the putting up of any samadhi over that place. The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner that he had used the lands for non-agricultural and (non-horticultural purposes and that he has committed acts destructive of or injurious to the lands.

(3.) IT is thus seen from the counter of the respondent and also the evidence of R. W. No. 1 that a pond had been dug in the lands leased out to the respondent. IT is also clear from the evidence of R. W. 1, that no permission was obtained from the petitioner. In this situation, the question is, whether coconut cultivation and the digging up of the pond in a double crop land, which had been let out for cultivation of paddy, would be acts which are destructive of or injurious to the lands and would also amount to user of the land for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural. There is no dispute between the parties that the lands has been originally leased out only for purposes of paddy cultivation and that the respondent has been measuring paddy rent. The raising of coconut trees as seen from the report of the commissioner is not only on the ridges as claimed by the respondent, but extends, to portions of the survey numbers leased out to the respondent. The raising of coconut trees in double crop nanja lands would undoubtedly be an act which would be injurious to the lands though it may be that if would still be a horticultural purpose. The raising of coconut trees in double crop nanja lands involves the digging of deep pits and when the coconut trees grow up they are deeply imbedded in the soil and the soil is thus rendered less fertile and unfi for paddy cultivation. In other words, it will be in the nature of an act which is injurious to the land. In addition, in this case, even in the counter, the respondent had admitted the digging up a pond, though he would claim that it is for the purpose of irrigating the coconut saplings. When the raising of coconut trees by itself is an act which is injurious to the lands the further digging up of a pond for the purpose of irrigating the coconut saplings would also be an act which is really destructive of and injurious to the land. In Sattayappa Thevars. V. Sambanda Thevar1, the question arose whether if a single crop is raised in a double crop land, the tenant can be stated to have committed any act which is injurious to the land. Kailasam, j. (as he then was), held that it could be inferred that the value of the land would be adversely affected if only a single crop is cultivated in a double crop land and there will be injury to the land value. If the mere cultivation of a single crop in a double crop land by itself has been held to bean act injurious to the land, it would be all the more so in a case like the present where the respondent admittedly had dug up a portion of the cultivable lands leased out to him for purposes of a pond.