SRI NAVANEETHASWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. P.SWAMINATHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE village of Sellur belongs to the Navaneethaswaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, as Ekabngam Mirasdar or sole proprietor. The village was not an estate within the meaning of Madras Act I of 1908 as that Act originally -stood, but became one by virtue of Madras Act XVIII of 1936. The lands which form the subject -matter of this litigation are not private lands. On 29th November 1917, this Court decided in A.S. Nos. 146, 228 and 230 of 1916 that the village was not an estate, from which it follows that no ryots had any permanent rights of occupancy in the lands. By a lease deed dated 31st July, 1946, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam leased some of the lands situated in the village to Srinivasa Naidu for a period of three years. Similarly, by another lease deed dated 29th July, 1946, the Devasthanam leased some other lands to one Swaminatha Pillai, also for a period of three years. After 31st December, 1948, the lessees refused to pay rent at the contract rate. They also refused to surrender possession. They claimed that they had acquired permanent rights of occupancy in the lands and that they were liable to pay only at rates to be ascertained in the manner provided by the Madras Estates Land Act. The District Judge, East Tanjore, upheld the claim of the lessees. Thereupon the Devasthanam came to this Court in Appeal Nos. 558 and 559 of 1950.

(2.) IN Navaneetheswaraswami Devasthanam v. Ganapathi (1955) 2 M.L.J. 112, a Bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., held in circumstances similar to those present here, but in respect of other lands in the village, that the ryots were not entitled to permanent rights of occupancy, and, that they were bound by the terms of the lease. A different view, however was expressed by Subba Rao and Panchapakesa Ayyar, JJ., in Seshayya v. Naraslmhacharyulu (1955) 1 M.L.J. 439 : I.L.R. (1955) Mad. 1151. In view of this conflict of opinion, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., before whom Appeal Nos. 558 and 559 of 1950 came up for decision, referred the following question to a Full Bench. (1)(a) Under Section 8(5) of the Estates Land Act has a landholder admitting any person in the possession of ryoti lands on such terms as may be agreed upon between them for the period of 12 years from the commencement of the Estates Land Act (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, as specifically mentioned in Section 8(5) the right within the period of those 12 years to lease out the lands to any person for 99 years, or any other long period, on such terms as may be agreed between them, or will such lease operate only till 1st November, 1948, regarding its terms, and then be automatically replaced by the Estates Land Act? (b) If such a lease for 99 years, etc., entered into between them within the 12 years' period, is held to be valid, as conferring on the lessee a right to continue for the term mentioned, can the landholder claim rents in respect of the holding after 1st. November, 1948, as per the lease, if the rents stipulated are higher than those claimable under Section 25 of the Estates Land Act, in spite of the lands continuing to be ryoti lands? (2) If a landholder, within the 12 years' period, admits any person to the possession of such, ryoti lands, on such terms as may be agreed upon between them, but the lease extends beyond 1st November, 1948, can the lessee continuing in possession on 1st November, 1948, claim a permanent right of occupancy in the holding, under Section 6(1) of the Estates Land Act, on the ground that he had been impliedly admitted into possession of ryoti lands situated in an estate, and he has continued to be a tenant under the landholder on 1st November, 1948, after the expiry of the 12 years' period mentioned in Section 8(5)?

(3.) THE answer to these questions depends upon the true interpretation of Section 6(1) and Section 8(5) of the Act which runs as follows: 6. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every ryot now in possession or who shall hereafter be admitted by a landholder to possession of ryoti land situated in the estate of such landholder shall have a permanent right of occupancy in his holding. 8. (5) If before the first day of November, 1933, the landholder has obtained in respect of any land in an estate within the meaning of Sub -clause (d) of Clause (2) of Section 3 a final decree or order of a competent civil Court establishing that the tenant has no occupancy right in such land, and no tenant has acquired any occupancy right in such land before the commencement of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, the landholder shall, if the land is not private land within the meaning of this Act, have the right, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for a period of twelve years from the commencement of the Madras Estats Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, of admitting any person to the possession of such land on such terms as may be agreed upon between them: Provided that nothing contained in this sub -section shall be deemed during the said period of twelve years or any part thereof to affect the validity of any agreement between the landholder and the tenant subsisting at the commencement of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936.