PUTHIYETATH MAYAN Vs. AMMINIKANDI KRISHNAN NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises in this appeal is with regard to the meaning to be given to the word "family" in Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.

(2.) ON the nth June, 1931, the appellant granted a lease of the kudiyiruppu in suit to the respondent's father, his father's two brothers, and his father's sister, who constituted a tavazhi Scetion 3(m)(1) of the Act defines "kudiyiruppu" as meaning and including the site of a residential building, the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto, such other lands as are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the residential building, and the easements attached thereto. In the year 1935 (the exact date has not been disclosed) the father purchased the interests of his two brothers in the lease. On the 6th July, 1936, he assigned his interest therein to the respondent. Sometime in 1937, the respondent purchased his aunt's interest in the lease and thereby became the sole lessee. Admittedly he became the tenant of the kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the definition of "tenant" given in Section 3(v).

(3.) IT is necessary to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(c), 14(5) and 20(5), because the word "family" appears in all these sections. But before doing so, we would point out that the Act governs all tenancies in Malabar whether they are held by families governed by the Marumakkattayam law, or the Mitakshara law, or the Muhammadan law, or the general law. Its main object is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants and to give them the right of permanent occupation of land held by them.