PONNUMANICKATHAMMAL & OTHERS Vs. ARPUDAM AROKIASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed under S.3(iii) of the Karaikal Tenants Protection Order 1960 in O.P. No. 32 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Karaikal, the respondent herein preferred A.S. No. 89 of 1971. The eviction itself was on the ground of arrears of lease rent which was found in favour of the landlord and accordingly the eviction order was passed. On appeal, the learned Principal District Judge of Pondicherry found that the tenant had committed default in the payment of lease amount. However, he proceeded to apply S. 106 of the Transfer of property Act and hold that there was no valid notice complying with the provisions of the said section. It is some -what surprising as to how he chose to apply the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act without even noting that the Chapter relating to lease under the transfer of Property Act has no application to agricultural tenancy unless there is a separate notification extending the same. It is the common case that there is no such notification. From this, it is apparent that the learned District Judge was oblivious to S. 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. But it is contended for the respondent that the saving clause under S. 4of the Pondicherry Laws Extension Act, 1968 provides that in other matters French law will continue to be applied and the notice of eviction must confirm to the requirements of French Law. On this aspect, I was inclined to remand the case. But it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that pending the appeal before the District Court, the order of eviction had been executed and possession has been taken over by the landlord. Hence there cannot be any restoration of possession in favour of the tenant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Mayilsami Gounder v/s. Mummoorthi, 1970 -I M.L.J. 606;, 83 L.W. 352 wherein under identical circumstances in case arising under the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1956, a Division Bench of this Court held that there being no inherent power, restoration could not be ordered. This case is sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent saying that under the Tamil Nadu Act, namely, Act, 25 of 1956, the statutory' authorities exercise the powers while under the Karaikal Tenants Protection Order, 1960, the tribunal first instance, exercises the power. In other words, a judicial authority exercises the power which would mean that all the necessary powers under the Civil Procedure Code could be invoked including that of the inherent power of restoration. The fallacy in this argument lies thus: No doubt, it is the tribunal first instance that is the authority constituted under the Karaikal Tenants Protection Order. From that in cannot straightaway follow that all the powers available under the Civil Procedure Code could be made applicable. This is because it exercises statutory powers and it has to act within the four corners of the statute and the distinction sought to be placed on 1970 -1.M.L.J. 606 is without substance. Hence necessarily this civil revision petition will have to be allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.