MOHAMAD HUSSAIN ROWTHER Vs. KASAIYYA SHOLAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the Rent Court, Thanjavur. The petitioner is the landowner. The respondent -tenant filed an application under Section 3(6) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, (XXIV of 1956), to direct the landowner to maintain the lands in proper condition by doing the reclamation work to the leasehold lands affected and damaged by floods of July, 1961. Both the Presiding Officer of the Rent Court, Thanjavur, and the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif), Tiruvaiyaru, have held that the landowner was bound to maintain the lands as prayed for by the tenant. It is against this order the landowner has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) SECTION 3(6) of the Act is in the following words:

(3.) THE word 'to maintain' was the subject of discussion and interpretation in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In Regina v. The Inhabitant of the Parish of Paul 2 Moody & Rabinson's Reports. 307, when the State indicted the inhabitants of a certain Parish for non -repair of highway, it was held that they were not responsible as the highway was washed by the sea and there was nothing for them to repair. Similarly, in another case, The Queen v. Bamber, L.R. 5 Q.B.R. 279, it was held that if all the materials of which a road could be made had been swept away by the act of God, the defendant could not be held liable for not repairing the road. In The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Greenhow, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 703, there was an indictment against the inhabitants of a certain township for the no repair of a highway. Blackburn, J., held that on the facts of the case there was no proof of such destruction of the highway as to exempt the parish from their liability. The learned Judge observed that it could not be said that the road was annihilated and that it was impossible in a commercial sense, to repair it, that is, that it would cost more than the subject -matter of repair was reasonably worth. Evidently the cost of repair in that case was reasonable and not very much. In Sevenoaks Maidstone and Tunbridge Railway & Co. v. London Chatham and Dover Railway Co., L.R. 11 Ch. D. 625 , a railway company was authorised to make and maintain a railway line with all proper stations, approaches and works and were empowered to transfer or sell the railway to another company to be maintained and worked. While the company was in possession of the railway line, the railway company erected some stone -steps in the station yard which the company removed. In an action for mandatory injunction to compel the company to restore the steps, Jessel, M.R., observed at page 634: