KOTHANDA PILLAI Vs. DEVARAJA REDDY DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition to revise an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, saidapet Dn, by which he accepted a preliminary objection from the respondent-tenant based on S. 4-A (5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 and dismissed the landlord's petition for resumption of the holding. The Revenue divisional Officer did so on the strength of Natesa Pillai v. Mahalinga Padayachi 1961-2 Mad LJ 246.

(2.) SO far as the principle of law is concerned, no exception could be taken to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. S. 4-A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants protection Act 1955 confers on the landlords a limited right to resume land for personal cultivation. Sub-sec. (4) qualifies his right which he can exercise only if he does not own in excess of 13-1/3 acres of wet land or has not been assessed to any sales tax, profession tax or income-tax under the laws relating to the levy of such taxes during 1954-55 or 1955-56. Sub-sec. (5) reads as follows:

(3.) BUT what is argued for the petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to investigate the facts to see whether the vendor on the material date owned land exceeding the ceiling of 13-1/3 acres or was paying any of the taxes mentioned in sub-sec. (4) so that sub-sec. (5) would be attracted. Without finding the facts, the Revenue Divisional Officer has upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. In doing so, he was in error.