KRISHNA KAMBAR Vs. MUTHIAH THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by a landlord under the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (XXV of 1955) against an order of the Revenue Court rejecting his application for eviction, in limine on the ground of res judicata and as would be seen presently, creating a very anomalous situation. Of course, I do not see any room for such a position either in law or on general principles. The brief facts are: The petitioner herein claims to be the holder of the land in question as having been granted to his family by the Samudayamdars of the village for the purpose of doing piper service on ceremonial occasions such as pongal, sravanam, etc. and in the temples. According to the petitioner, he leased the disputed land to the respondent herein in the year 1958 on a rent of two kottahs of paddy per year. On the respondent herein, defaulting in the payment of rent for pisanam 1134 and denying the title of the petitioner herein the petitioner initiated proceedings (Madras Cultivating Tenants, Petition No. 21 of 1959) under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent from the land. Before the Revenue Court in that proceeding, the respondent contended that the petitioner was not the lessor. He produced a lease deed from one Ganapathi Iyer, and, on a summary enquiry holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established between the petitioner and the respondent, the Revenue Court dismissed the petition. Upon this dismissal finding against his title, the petitioner instituted original suit, Original Suit No. 607 of 1960, on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, for a declaration of his title to the property, possession and for past profits against the respondent herein. The respondent raised against the question of title. Various issues of law and fact arose, and, on an exhaustive consideration on the materials placed before the Court, the learned District Munsif found that there could be no denial of the petitioner's title or possession by the Samudayamdars of the village whose title and possession was put forward by the respondent. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff (the petitioner) was entitled to be in possession of the property, the same having been secured to him under the decree in Original Suit No. 93 of 1947, on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli. The petitioner's right to possession from the defendant (the respondent herein) subject to the provisions of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act was also upheld. As, however the civil Court had no jurisdiction to order eviction and as it was found that the respondent was cultivating tenant under the petitioner, the respondent having become the lessee of the land only from the agent of the petitioner, the suit was transferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for disposal under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, he persuaded himself to the view that as a final decision had been previously given by the Revenue Court in Madras Cultivating Tenants, Petition No. 21 of 1959 that the petitioner was not a landlord entitled to claim the benefits under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act and to seek the easy relief of getting the eviction of the tenant, the question cannot be reopened once again. It is the correctness of this view, as a result of which the petitioner is denied relief by the Revenue Court after having been sent to that Court for relief that is now challenged before me. The Revenue Court is of the view that the petitioner must have agitated the correctness of the earlier decision of the Revenue Court in revision in this Court, and, having failed to do so, the decision earlier given of the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was a final decision. The Revenue Court no doubt notes that the civil Court has in the subsequent Original Suit No. 607 of 1960, given a decision in favour of the petitioner supporting his title. But it is observed that it would be necessary for the Revenue Court to decide whether the respondent was a cultivating tenant and this had been the subject of prior decision by that Court against the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer reasons that even if the tenancy relationship had been proved it could not be a valid tenancy agreement, such agreement being valid only with the person competent to enter into agreement. I fail to see the purpose of this discussion. The learned District Munsif has gone in extenso into the title put forward. The Samudayamdars' right to possession of the property and their leasing it to the respondent in their own right as contended by the tenant has been categorically found against. The civil Court, the competent Court to adjudicate on questions of title, has found that the tenancy of the respondent is under the petitioner, and, in fact, he had measured rents earlier to the petitioner himself. The mere fact that on an earlier occasion the Revenue Court which was holding a summary enquiry into the matter had found against the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is of absolutely no consequence in the present case as there is no finality to such a finding. The Revenue Divisional Officer has failed to notice that it was to get over that finding given in a Summary adjudication that the petitioner had to seek relief in the civil Court and get his title established before approaching the Revenue Court again for eviction.

(3.) IF the view of the Revenue Divisional Officer is to prevail, the anomaly of the situation is obvious. The civil Court will not as it cannot grant relief even though the petitioner has shown his right to the same. The Revenue Court would not take up the matter as it had earlier decided that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Passing it may be noticed that the Act itself does not as is found in Section 19 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, make the prior proceeding a bar. The Revenue Divisional Officer has failed to note that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and is confined to questions of jurisdiction only. The failure of the petitioner to go up in revision to the High Court on the earlier occasion when a finding had been given in the summary proceeding as to the title, cannot confer on that decision of title a finality. Whereas under the Rent Control Act above referred to, on denial of title of the landlord, if the denial is found bona fide, the landlord is left to seek his remedy in a civil Court, the civil Court being empowered to pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the Rent Control Act itself, under the Act now in consideration there is no such provision and the civil Court is precluded under Section 6 of the Act from exercising jurisdiction in respect of any matter the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered under the Act to determine.