K ARUMUGHAM NAICKER Vs. TIRUVALLUVA NAINAR TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of proceedings of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The respondent, Sri Tiruvalluva Nainar temple, leased a certain vacant land to the petitioners for agricultural purposes. They erected certain huts on the land. The landholder i.e., the respondent terminated the tenancy and, in order to recover possession of the property, applied under Section 41. Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for delivery of possession of the property. Of the petitioners, the first petitioner admitted the claim of the temple for possession of the property and the second petitioner was ex parte. The application was allowed and the bailiff was directed to deliver possession of the property to the respondent. When the bailiff went to deliver possession of the property, he found there were four huts put up by the petitioners on the land and, as there was no order directing removal of the huts, he declined to remove them and deliver possession to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application to direct the bailiff to remove the four huts put up by the petitioners on the suit land and deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the respondent.

(2.) Though in the application under Section 41 of the Act, the petitioners raised no dispute in this application, however, they raised the contention that the Court had no power to direct the bailiff to remove the huts and put the landlord in vacant possession of the land. In other words, their contention was that the Court can no doubt direct delivery of possession but the Court had no machinery open to it to make effective its own order and to enforce it. The learned Small Cause Judge considered that the situation of that court was not so helpless as contended by the present petitioners and held that it had ample jurisdiction to direct its own officer, the bailiff, to remove the huts and to deliver vacant possession of the land to the landlord.

(3.) In this revision petition, it was strenuously contended that the court had no jurisdiction to issue a direction to the bailiff to remove the huts and deliver vacant possession of the land, for, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the machinery provided under the Small Cause Courts Act was defective in that no provision to meet such a contingency was made in the Act.