Skip to content


Subraya Shanbhogue Vs. Kunhippa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1304 of 1955 (M)
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Ker143
ActsTenancy Law; Canara Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1954 - Sections 3(3)
AppellantSubraya Shanbhogue
RespondentKunhippa
Appellant Advocate T. Krishna Rao,; S. Narayanan Potti,; P. Karunakaran Nai
Respondent Advocate V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredMannil v. Kcsava Tharagan
Excerpt:
- .....as made more than a month after the first arid second instalments of the paddy portion of the rent accrued due though within a month of the due date of the last instalment of money. the court below repelled the objection and recorded full satisfaction of the rent due. hence this revision,2. now clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act with which we are concerned is in the following terms :'3. (a) a cultivating tenant may deposit in court the rent or, if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit to the account of the landlord- (i) in the case of rent accrued due subsequent to the 31 march 1953, within a month after the commencement of this act. (ii) in the case of rent accrued due after the commencement of this act within a month after the date.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Varadaraja Iyengar, J.

1. This revision arises out of an application filed by the respondent-tenant before the Court below on 9-4-1955 under Section 3 (3) of the South Canara Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act (Madras Act VI of 1954) as amended by Act II of 1955. The prayer was for acceptance of a deposit of the rent due to the landlord for the year ending Vishu 1955 under a Chalgeni lease dated 24-4-1950 and filed in the case Ext. B-14. This lease deed was for a term of one year and the rent reserved of 50 murahs of paddy and Rs. 18 was made payable in three instalments, 25 murahs of paddy by the 30th Thulam from the Karthigal crop. 25 murahs of paddy by 30th Magha Bahula from the Suggi crop and Rs. 18 by the 10th March 1951.

The objection was raised by the revision petitioner herein, who was entitled to recover the rent as the usufructuary mortgagee from the landlord that the deposit was out of time, as made more than a month after the first arid second instalments of the paddy portion of the rent accrued due though within a month of the due date of the last instalment of money. The Court below repelled the objection and recorded full satisfaction of the rent due. Hence this revision,

2. Now Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act with which We are concerned is in the following terms :

'3. (a) A cultivating tenant may deposit in Court the rent or, if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit to the account of the landlord-

(i) in the case of rent accrued due subsequent to the 31 March 1953, within a month after the commencement of this Act.

(ii) in the case of rent accrued due after the commencement of this Act within a month after the date on which rent accrued due.

3. It will be seen that the clause speaks of the deposit of 'rent' and does not speak of. each instalment thereof. The clause contemplates again a single deposit and not a series of deposits. It would appear therefore that a single deposit alone is called for even when there are more than one instalment of rent due and such deposit should bo after the date of the last instalment i.e., when all the instalments have accrued due. Construing the corresponding provision in Section 4 (4) of the Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act (17 of 1946) for the deposit of 'each year's rent as it accrues due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable,' Panchapakesa Ayyar J., held in Chandra Kandi Kunhi Pathumma v. Avammad, 1951-1 Mad LJ 100 (A), that it referred only to the rent accruing at the end of each year even when the rent was payable by custom or contract in two half yearly instalments.

The learned Judge relied among other matters on the fact that the rent is fixed per year as in Ext. B-14 herein though payable in instalments. In a prior ruling under the same section the learned Judge had held in respect of a tenant holding over, again as here, that a deposit by him of the year's rent within the time fixed was sufficient, to entitle him to the concession under the Act even though he had not paid the instalment according to the original lease deed. See Abdulla v. Patinhare Kettu Tavazhi, 1948-2 Mad LJ 71 (SN) (B). There is a similar ruling by Mack J., in Mannil v. Kcsava Tharagan, 1948-2 Mad LJ 46, (SN) (C).

4. Mr. S. Narayanan potti, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, strongly urged that the rulings above referred to could not serve as a guide in this case inasmuch as the provisions of the two enactments were not in pari materia and he drew my attention to the qualification of the expression 'rent' as 'each' year's in Act 17 of 1946 while there was no such qualification in the Act VI of 1954 with which we are concerned. But I am not persuaded that that distinction makes all the difference particularly as the two Acts were in their application meant to supplement each other. For while the earlier Act was intended to protect among others the tenants to whom the Malabav Tenancy Act, 1929 applied and on such footing applied to certain areas of the District of South Canara, the later Act wag intended to cover the rest of the areas in that same District.

Learned counsel next referred to certain passages in Mulla's Transfer of Property Act and Woodfall's Landlord and Tenant in support of the principle that the time of payment of rent may be fixed by the terms of the lease or by custom and if not it was at the end of the period for which the rent was reserved, and therefore the year's rent can never be said to accrue at the time of the last instalment thereof. But this argument hardly advances the revision petitioner's case. Nor is the principle relied on any way helpful on the question of statutory construction we are at. It follows that the decision of the Court below is right. The revision petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //