ABDUL RAVOOF SAHIB Vs. M. KANNAPPAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed by the landlord arises out of proceedings filed by a tenant for restoration of possession under Sec. 4(5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, Madras Act XXIV of 1955 (referred to as the Act). The tenant's case was that his father, as well as himself, have been cultivating the lands on lease under the landlords, one of whom is the Petitioner in this civil revision petition, paying a rent of Rs. 350 per year, that the rent was latterly being collected by one Abdul Latheef Sahib, the brother -in -law of the landlords and that the tenant was dispossessed forcibly from the lands on 22nd March 1963 by one Chinnaraju Gounder along with his party men ,and that the latter harvested the standing crops in the field and also set fire to a portion of the sugarcane crops. The application for restoration was filed on 3rd April 1963. But even before this application was filed the landlords appear to have leased the properties in favour of Chinnaraju Gounder and Rama Gounder on 16th March 1963 under a registered lease deed exhibit B -1, dated 16th March 1963.

(2.) The landlords resisted the application for restoration of possession on the ground that the Petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first Respondent herein, was never their cultivating tenant, that he was never in possession of the lands, which they themselves were cultivating for the past six or seven years and that they had leased the properties to Chinnaraju Gounder and Rama Gounder. They also denied that Abdul Latheef Sahib was an agent working under them.

(3.) On a consideration of the oral and the documentary evidence, consisting of receipts and money order receipts, the evidence of the karnam and other residents of the village, the Revenue Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the first Respondent herein (the Petitioner before him) was a cultivating tenant under the landlords for several years, and that Abdul Latheef Sahib, the brother -in -law of the landlords was also acting as their agent collecting rents from the tenant. The attempt of the landlords either to deny the payments made by the tenant or to connect it as rent towards some other lands failed as totally false. One of the landlords has preferred the above civil revision petition.