DURGA MADHAB PATTAJOSHI Vs. SOMEOATH RAVULO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, against the order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 8th May 1956, in a batch of six revision cases, Nos. 141, 142, 143,144, 145 and 146 of 1955.56, filed by six tenants against the orders of the lower courts directing their eviction.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the trustee of a Deity Sri Brahmeswara Mohaparabhu, who is the landlord of some lands in village Latti in Berhampur Taluk of Ganjam district. On the 17th of February 1954:, he instituted six suits, O.T.P. Cases Nos. 5 to 10 of 1954, against the tenants alleging that they failed to pay the entire rajabhag due to the landlord for the year 1950.51, and consequently they were liable to eviction. His prayer was two -fold. Firstly, he wanted a decree for arrears of rent due for the period in question and secondly he wanted a decree for eviction of the tenants from the suit lands. All the suits were heard analogously and disposed of by one judgment, by the trial court, the appellate court, and the court of revision. The trial court decreed the arrear rental due and also directed eviction of the tenants and this order was upheld on appeal, by the Additional District Collector of Ganjam. The Board of Revenue, however while maintaining the decree for arrears of rent, with a slight modification as regards the rate of interest, set aside that portion of the trial court's order dealing with the eviction of the tenants from the land.

(3.) THERE has been some inaccurate statements of the fact by the parties themselves, when the cases were fought out before the lower courts. I find that in the original application before the trial court, the Petitioner described his application as a suit under Section 7 of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act read with Madras Estates Land Act. It is now admitted by Mr. Ramdas on behalf of the Petitioner that the village is in the ryotwari area of Ganjam district and it is not governed by the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act at all. The property of the Petitioners is a minor inam and the relationship between the Petitioner and his tenants would ordinarily have been governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. But by virtue of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act which Came into force on the 1st September 1947, protection from eviction was given to all classes of tenants even under a minor inamdar and the landlord's right to evict them was circumscribed In the various provisions of that Act. The inaccurate statement of the Petitioner in his plaint about the applicability of the Madras Estates Land Act to the lands in question misled the Member of the Board of Revenue, into thinking that produce rent for 1951 -52 and 1952 -53 was recovered by means of a proceeding under Section 74 of the Madras Estates Land Act. It is, however, now conceded before us by Mr. Ramdas, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the produce rent due to the Petitioner from the tenants for the year 1951 -52 and 1952 -53, was recovered not under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act but by an application to the Revenue Officer under Clause (e) of Sub -section (1) of Section 7, read with Sub -section (8) of that Section of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act. It is indeed unfortunate that such wrong statements should have been made before the lower court leading to some confusion.