ABDUL KADER ROWTHEN Vs. VELU NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a trader in timber. On the 14 January, 1937, he acquired a lease from the respondent of a small piece of land at Olavakode in the Palghat Municipality. His object in taking the lease was to store timber on the land. When he entered into occupation he erected three sheds. The landlord had the right to determine the tenancy on demand and required the tenant to vacate in the early part of 1940. As his demand for possession was not complied with he filed a suit for ejectment in the Court of the District Munsiff of Palghat. The appellant pleaded that he could not be evicted until the respondent had paid to him the value of the three sheds as they had been erected with the knowledge and consent of the respondent. This plea was rejected by the District Munsiff who granted a decree for ejectment without requiring the respondent to make any payment on account of the structures. The appellant appealed to the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar. In that Court the respondent based his claim for compensation on the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1899. The Subordinate Judge held that the Act did not apply and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then appealed to this Court. In the first place the case came before Somayya, J., who called for a finding from the Subordinate Judge on the question whether the erection of the sheds constituted an improvement to the land. The Subordinate Judge reported that it did. Somayya, J., then directed that the case should be placed before a Bench for hearing as the extent of the application of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act was in dispute.

(2.) The effect of the Act has been raised in several cases which have come before this Court and it is necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal to examine them in detail. We propose to take them in the order of date but before doing so we must refer to the relevant sections of the Act.

(3.) The word "tenant" is defined in Section 3 and includes a person who as lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee or sub-mortgagee or in good faith believing himself to be lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee or sub-mortgagee of land is in possession. The section also defines the word " improvement." It means any work or product of a work which adds to the value of the holding, is suitable to it and consistent with the purpose for which the holding was let, mortgaged or occupied. Section 4 states what shall be presumed to be improvements for the purposes of the Act until the contrary is shown. They are as follows: (a) The erection of dwelling houses, buildings appurtenant thereto and farm buildings; (b) the construction of tanks, wells, channels, dams and other works for the storage or supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes; (c) the preparation of land for irrigation; (d) the conversion of one-crop into two-crop land; (e) the drainage reclamation from rivers or other waters, or protection from floods or from erosion or other damage by water, of land used for agricultural purposes, or of waste land which is culturable; (f) the reclamation, clearance enclosure or permanent improvement of land for agricultural purposes; (g) the removal or reconstruction of any of the foregoing works, or alterations thereon or additions thereto; (h) the planting or protecting and maintenance of fruit trees, timber trees and other useful trees and plants. Section 5 entitles a tenant to compensation for " improvements " when he is ejected from the land.