SAROJINI AMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these petitions are landlords who have let out their lands to tenants for cultivation and have either filed applications for eviction before the Revenue Court on the ground that the tenants have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent or filed suits in civil courts for recovery of the arrears of rent. All these petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, Madras Act XXI of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, of India. According to them, the provisions of the Act practically liquidate the rights of the land lords and prevent eviction even: when the tenants are admittedly in arrears, that the tenants who art in arrears for several years are entitled to continue in possession of the leasehold property if they pay the current rent alone, that no application for eviction can even be made for six months from the date of the publication of the Act, that even tenants who have been evicted are enabled to get restoration of possession merely on payment of the current rent, that the provisions of the Act which are drastic in nature practically deprive the owners of the land of their lawful income from the properties, that while the owners are obliged to pay taxes and other rates to the State, they are deprived of the only income from which they can hope to meet those taxes and public charges, and that this virtually. and in effect amounts to illegal confiscation of their properties.

(2.) Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act (Madras Act XXI of 19172) was passed by the State Legislature and received the assent of the President on 9-8-1972. The Act is intended to give relief to cultivating tenants in respect of certain arrears of rents. The Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act which explain the necessity for the legislation state that the cultivating tenants have borrowed and added to their debts during the years of drought, that they are not in a position to pay the arrears of rent due to indebtedness and poor economic conditions, that. on account of default in the payment of arrears of rents, the landlords have initiated action against the cultivating tenants for eviction and for recovery. of arrears of rent, and that in the, interests of the general public and in order. to obtain maximum advantage in the matter of production of food crops, the 'cultivating tenants should be spared the distractions and expenditure involved to the litigation. In the above circumstances, it was considered necessary as part of the agrarian reforms, to give relief to the cultivating tenants from the burden of discharging the arrears of rent on condition of payment of current rent. Due to the landlords and with that object, the above Act was enacted. Section 3 of the Act provides for relief to the tenants in payment of arrears of rent outstanding on the 30th June 1971 provided the cultivating tenants deposit the whole current rent that is rent due for the fails year commencing on 1st July 1971 and ending with 30th June 1972, within 6 months from, the date of publication of the Act, that is on 11-8-1972. Section 4 is a deeming provision under which, if any cultivating tenant paid on or after l st July 1972, any rent to the landlord or deposited into court, it shall be deemed to be the payment towards the. Current rent. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 4 however disentitles any cultivating tenant to claim Any refund from the landlord on the round that the payment or deposit made on or after 1st July 1971, towards the discharge of any arrears is in excess of the rent due as current rent. Sec. 5 prohibits any suit for recovery of arrears and for eviction of cultivating tenants within the period of six months from the date of publication of the Act. Section 7 provides for restoration of possession of land to cultivating tenants who have been evicted on or after 1st March 1972, and before the publication of the Act, on, the ground of non-payment of rent, provided he pays the current rent. Section 9 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding any inconsistent therewith contained in certain statutes. The provisions referred to above show that the main object of the Act Is to give an option to the tenant to pay the current rent within a specified period if he is to have the benefit of all the outstanding arrears getting wiped off. The Act does not referred the entire dues payable by tenants compulsorily.

(3.) According to the petitioners the Act takes away the rights of the landlord to receive arrears of rent which is definitely 'property' within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and such a right cannot be taken away except in certain circumstances and without paying compensation. Under the guise of this Act, it is said, the Government has only abolished all arrears of rent due by the tenants, but has all not given any exemption from land revenue agricultural income-tax etc. It is also complained that the Act does not provide for any compensation payable to the landlords in respect of the arrears of rent which has been abolished or wiped out under the Act, that the Act is highly district and violative of Article 14, as it strikes only at a particular class of property holders and that the provisions of the Act are violative of the fundamental right to hold property and to receive income there from as guaranteed under the Constitution. It is, also stated by the petitioners that the reasons contained in the Preamble as well as the. Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the legislation are neither true nor justify the deprivation of the landlords of their just dues from the tenants without any compensation, that indebtedness of the tenant and the resultant inability to pay the arrears of rent is not a justification for depriving the landlord of his due share in the produce, that if the tenants are indebted, they can have the benefit of the Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act and that for failure of seasonal rains if the tenant was not able to realise the normal yield, he can obtain relief from the Revenue Court under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Further, during the time of drought it has been a normal routine and procedure adopted by the State remitting land revenue either wholly or in part for the relevant fasli year. It is also pointed out that in the face of the specific provisions in the Cultivating Tenants Act (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, there is hardly any justification for total confiscation of all the arrears of rent that would accrue to the landlords prior to 1st July 1971. It is also stated that in the last few years the quality and quantity of food production has increased manifold in the State and the price of paddy and other agricultural produce has also increased by 50 per cent over the years and the seasons have been favourable and that the cultivating tenants are in fact getting a high return. They have been also given protection from eviction from time to time, for non-payment of rent to the landlord for a certain period. Under the Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1968 the tenants were given time for payment of arrears in installments. Therefore, the reasons given in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for bringing in the Act, according to the petitioners cannot be relevant or germane and may not justify the wiping out of the arrears of rent due by the tenants to the landlords for the period prior to 1st July 1971. It is no doubt true that under the provisions of the Act if the current rent payable by a tenant to the landlord in respect of the demised land is paid within six months from the date of commencement of the Act, the tenant will not be liable to pay the balance of the arrears. The question is whether such a deprivation violates Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and whether it is protected by Article 31-A or 31-C.