VELUCHAMI NAICKER Vs. M MOUNA GURUSAMI NAICKER (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O.S. No. 52 of 1954, a suit filed by the first respondent (who has died pending the appeal and whose legal representative has been brought on record as the third respondent) for recovery of possession of certain lands situated in the villages in Palni taluk, Madurai district, from defendants 1 to 7 who are the office-bearers of the 8th defendant which is a sangham. The substantial issue before the learned trial Judge was whether the defendants were not liable to be evicted because of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955, which came into force on 24th September, 1955, that is, long after the suit was instituted. The learned Judge held that the Act did not apply because the suit had been filed on 22nd October, 1954, prior to the coming into force of Madras Act XXV of 1955 and there was no indication of the intention of the Legislature that the Act should have retrospective effect. The learned Judge passed a decree as prayed for. Defendants 2 to 8 are the appellants. Before us again the objection based on Madras Act XXV of 1955 was pressed by Mr. G. R. Jagadisa Ayyar, learned Counsel for the appellants. Section 3 of the Act inter alia provides that no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof, during the continuance of the Act, by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise. Section 6 of the Act runs thus:

(2.) Under Section 3, Sub-section (4) a landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant shall make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is clear, therefore, that the relief of eviction is a matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to deal with and determine.

(3.) In our opinion the learned Judge erred in thinking that there was any question of restrospectivity in applying Section 3 of the Act. That section provides that during the continuance of the Act no cultivating tenant shall be evicted in any manner except as provided by the other provisions of the Act. Even if there is a decree for eviction against the cultivating tenant, he cannot be evicted in execution of that decree. Logically it may follow, as Mr. Thiagaraja Ayyar contended relying upon a decision of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., in Sinna Boyan V. Kutti Ettan Raja 1956 Mwn 863,that the effect of Section 3 would only be to prevent eviction in execution of a decree in the present suit, but the Court would not be deprived of jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and pass a mere decree for eviction. It is not necessary for us to decide whether this view is correct, especially having regard to Section 6 of the Act to which we have adverted above because there is a further Amending Act which came into force on 29th September, 1956, which indicates what has to be done to the suit which is now before us in appeal in case it is decided that the benefit of the Act would enure to the appellants in this case. The Amending Act has the following provision which is added to the principal Act as Section 6-A: