M.A. RATHINAM Vs. THANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in E. A. No. 360 of 1974 which was filed under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 for stay of the execution of the decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner in O.S. No. 231 of 1970 on the file of the same Court in E. P. R. No. 60 of 1974.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that after the decree had been obtained he paid Rs. 400/ - on 22nd November, 1972, and that he is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and to have the decree scaled down. He alleged that he would file a petition for the purpose of scaling down of the debt under Section 19 of the Act and prayed that the execution petition should therefore, be stayed under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The respondent opposed the petition contending that the petitioner was assessed to profession tax and owns two houses and one shop and pays property tax to the extent of Rs. 1,500/ - per annum and is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. The petitioner produced the kist receipts Exs. A -1 and A -2 to show that he pays kist and owns agricultural lands. But, under Section 3 proviso (c) of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, the person shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist, if he has, in all the four half years immediately preceding the 1st March, 1972, been assessed to property tax and house tax, provided that the aggregate annual rental value of such building and lands is not less than Rs. 1,200/ -. On the basis of the extract from the property tax demand register Ex. B -1 the lower Court found that the petitioner was paying property tax on properties, the annual rental value of which exceeded Rs. 1,200/ - and held that the petitioner is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act, and, therefore, was not entitled to have the execution proceedings stayed under the provisions of Section 20.

(3.) THERE is nothing to show that the annual rental value arrived at in Ex. B -1 is not net annual rental value but the gross rental value. That objection also does not appear to have been taken before the lower Court. The learned Judge has found from columns 5 and 6 of Ex. B -1 that the annual rental value comes to more than Rs. 1,200/ -. The petitioner himself appears to have contended in the counterstatement filed in E. P. No. 60 of 1974 that the shop fetches a rent of Rs. 300/ - per mensem and is worth Rs. 60,000/ - and that the upset price may be fixed at Rs. 75,000/ -. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioner pays property tax on house properties whose annual rental value exceeds Rs. 1,200/ - in the four half years. Therefore, the petitioner is not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act.