PANDARASANNATHI, THIRUVADUTHURAI ADHINAM Vs. MALAYAN SAMBAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are by the same petitioner and raise a common point regarding the construction of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955 (Act I of 1955) as affecting the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Act XIV of 1952).

(2.) THE following facts have to be stated to appreciate the difficulty that arises as a result of the impact of these two pieces of legislation. The petitioner, the head of the Thiruvaduthurai mutt is the owner of considerable landed property in Tanjore district. Two of the tenants in cultivation of the lands of the mutt are respondents in these two petitions. After the coming into force of Madras Act XIV of 1952 these tenants executed in February, 1953, muchilikas under Section 9 of that Act agreeing to pay stated amounts of paddy for each fasli. These tenants fell into arrear in regard to the grain rent payable for fasli 1362. The landlord thereupon filed petitions before the Revenue Court, Tanjore under Section 10 of Act XIV of 1952.

(3.) I feel handicapped by the fact that the cultivating tenants have not appeared before me in either of these petitions. The ground urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (Act XIV of 1952) was a self contained enactment and that the Revenue Court was wrong in travelling outside that Act in order to find out the rights of the tenants. He urged that Section 10, portions of which I have set out earlier clearly entitled, a landlord to an order for eviction in the event of the tenant defaulting to pay arrears of rent accruing due after the commencement of the Act and that this absolute obligation could not be deemed to have been modified by a general enactment like the Madras Act I of 1955 whose territorial operation extends to the entirety of the State and not confined to the rents payable by tenants in specified areas. It was his further contention that the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act imposed obligations on the landlord and the tenant each being the consideration for the other and it was in that context that the restriction on the right of the landlord to evict his tenants was imposed. He therefore urged that the Revenue Court erred in holding the provisions of Act I of 1955 as applicable to determine the scope of or the rights of the landholder provided for in Section 10 of Act XIV of 1952.