(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 113 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, is the appellant. The defendant had taken about 76 acres of land belonging to the plaintiff Devasthanam on lease. Possession of the lands were surrendered in the suit filed for recovery of rent. The principal amount due was Rs. 60,256. There were also costs of Rs. 1,939.50, thus totalling about Rs. 62,195.50. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 53,221. 83 and, therefore, there was a balance of Rs. 16,239.53 for which the suit was filed. A decree was granted. But an application was filed under Act VIII of 1973 which amended the Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938. The application was for recording full satisfaction of the decree. According to the judgment -debtor, as against the principal sum of Rs. 60,256 and costs of Rs. 1,939.50 totalling Rs. 62,195 he had already paid prior to the suit Rs. 53,221.83 and during the execution Rs. 14,500, totalling Rs. 67,721. 83 so that there was no amount due to the decree -holder as a result of the provisions of Act VIII of 1973. The Court below held that the judgment -debtor was not a cultivating tenant as he had already surrendered possession of the property in fasli 1373. It was also held that he was not an agriculturist. Thus he was not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 read with Act VIII of 1973. There was also a third ground of decision viz., that the suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and that the definition of 'debt' excluded arrears of rent, so that the Act did not apply. The result was that the petition was dismissed and it is this dismissal that has brought about the present civil miscellaneous appeal at the instance of the judgment -debtor.
(2.) THE first point that arises for consideration is, whether this is a debt which comes within the scope of Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938 read with Act VIII of 1973 -The term 'debt' has been defined in Section 3(3)(iii) as follows: