VYAPURI MOOPAN Vs. SETHURAMA IYER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals against the judgment and decree of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 1095 and 724 of 1956 before him. The petitions were filed by the landlords, Sethurama Iyer and Rajammal, for quashing the orders of the Revenue Court directing them to restore possession of certain lands to some mattuvaramdars Vayyapuri and Shanmugham, the respondents herein. The judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., discussed the cases of mattuvaramdars and kaieruvaramdars who claimed to be cultivating tenants who had cultivated lands for the agriculture year 1953 54 and therefore claimed to be entitled to restoration to possession as they satisfied the requirements of Madras Act XXV of 1955 and whose claims was allowed by the Revenue Court. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., after elaborately discussing the evidence, and the various qualifications required before making a person a ' cultivating tenant' within the meaning of Act XXV of 1955 (and the succeeding Acts XIV and XXIV of 1956) held that these mattuvaramdars and kaieruwaramdars were not 'cultivating tenants' within the meaning of Act XXV of 1955 or Act XIV of 1956, where the very same qualifications were set out. The main grounds relied on by him were that they had no possession or custody of the land and had no tenancy agreement, express or implied with the landlord, and had not also taken part in the entire cultivation of the crop, but only one part of it, and were also not paying any rent to the landlord, but were, on the other hand, paid by the landlord for their services certain marakkals (usually two marakkals) in every kalam of the net crop raised on the land, and in case of failure of crops, which had never occurred within living memory, some minimum wages left to the discretion of the landlord. So, he allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order for restoration passed by the Revenue Court, but directed all the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with that order, these two writ appeals have been filed for setting aside that order, and restoring the order of the Revenue Authority, on the ground that mattuvaramdars and kaieruvaramdars are ' cultivating tenants' within the meaning of the Act and are entitled to restoration of possession. We may add, incidentally, that after the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in the writ petitions, an Ordinance was issued by the Governor of Madras, when the Assembly was not in session, stating that mattuvaramdars and kaieruvaramdars should be deemed to be ' cultivating tenants ' within the meaning of the Act, and several writs, dismissed yesterday for non -prosecution were filed questioning the validity of that Ordinance and several C.M.Ps. in the writs for injunction, etc. That Ordinance lapsed and was not substituted by an Act or even a Bill, in the Assembly. It is for that reason that the petitioners who filed the writs did not prosecute them and get them and the connected petitions for injunction, etc., dismissed yesterday.

(3.) WE shall first take up the definition of a ' cultivating tenant'. As per Act XXV of 1955 (and the later Acts, Act XIV of 1956 and Act XXIV of 1956) a ' cultivating tenant' means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement or the heirs of such person, but shall not include a mere intermediary or his heirs. We shall now consider whether a kaieruvaramdar or a mattuvaramdar will come under the above definition.