Skip to content


Narayanan Nambudripad Vs. Rajagopala Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1327 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad684; (1951)IMLJ475
ActsTenancy Law; Madras Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1949 - Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(2A)
AppellantNarayanan Nambudripad
RespondentRajagopala Naidu and ors.
Appellant AdvocateD.A. Krishna Variar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateC.S. Swaminathan, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- - the deposit so made satisfied the condition under section 4 (2-a). 2. in the result the order of the lower court is correct and the revision is dismissed without costs here......on account of shrinkage. the lower court found that the amount deposited by the respondent was the rent payable by him according to the finding of the first court. the petitioner is no doubt questioning that finding in the appeal, mr. variar contended before me that the respondent should have deposited the rent in accordance with the claim made by his client in the appeal, and as he had only deposited the amount as found by the first court he would not be entitled to stay under the act. pend-ing the revision madras act xxiv of 1940 was enacted and it is agreed that the provisions of that act governed the question to be decided in this case. the relevant provision may be read: 'section 4(1). 'all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings (a) for the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. The petitioner before me filed the application No. 204 of 1947 on the file of the District Court of South Malabar for staying A. S. No. 345/46 under Act XVII of 1946. The rent due according to the plaintiff was 1099 paras and 2 edangalis of paddy for Kanni. But the respondent deposited the value of only 999 paras and 3 edangalis of paddy. It is sai5 that the difference represents deduction at one per ten on account of shrinkage. The lower Court found that the amount deposited by the respondent was the rent payable by him according to the finding of the first Court. The petitioner is no doubt questioning that finding in the appeal, Mr. Variar contended before me that the respondent should have deposited the rent in accordance with the claim made by his client in the appeal, and as he had only deposited the amount as found by the first Court he would not be entitled to stay under the Act. Pend-ing the revision Madras Act XXIV of 1940 was enacted and it is agreed that the provisions of that Act governed the question to be decided in this case.

The relevant provision may be read: 'Section 4(1). 'All suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings (a) for the eviction of tenants from their holdings or land as the case may be, or in which a claim for 'such eviction is involved, whether in addition to a claim for rent or not, or (b) in which the sale of the holding of a tenant or ryot for recovery of rent is claimed and which stood stayed up to the commencement of this Act or which may be instituted after such commencement in any Civil or Revenue Court, shall continue to stand stayed or shall stand stayed as the case may be, subject to the provisions of the following sub-sections.'

The section as originally enacted did not provide for any reat being deposited as a condition precedent for granting of stay. So Act VIII of 1950 was passed and under Section 3 of the Act 2-A was introduced after Sub-section 2 to Section 4 of Act XXIV of 1949. Under that sub-section,

'In the case of a suit or proceeding for thesale of a holding to recover rent, or of a proceeding in execution of a decree or orderobtained in any such suit or proceeding orof a proceeding in execution of a decree ororder for eviction, where the decree or orderprovides for the payment of rent (i) if thesuit or proceeding was instituted before thecommencement of the Madras Tenants andRyots Protection (Amendment) Act, 1950 andno deposit has been made in pursuance ofSection 4, Sub-section (3) of the MadrasTenants and Ryots Protection Act, 1946, thetenant or ryot shall deposit in Court for payment to the landlord, within two months fromsuch commencement, (a) the amount claimedin the suit or proceeding or the amount payable under the decree or order, or (b) therent for two years immediately precedingsuch commencement, whichever is less, or(ii) if the suit or proceeding is institutedafter such commencement, the tenant or ryotshall deposit in Court for payment tothe landlord, within two months from thedate on which notice of the suit or proceeding is served on him by the Court(which service shall be the duty of theCourt), (a) the amount claimed in the suit orproceeding or the amount payable under thedecree or order, or (b) the rent for two yearsimmediately preceding the date as aforesaid whichever is less, together with suchinterest as may be payable under law,custom, or agreement up to the date ofdeposit.' A combined reading of these provisionsshows that in the case of an appeal in whichthe sale of the holding of the tenant or theright for recovery of rent is claimed, the respondent would be entitled to a stay if withintwo months from the commencement of thatappeal, the amount claimed in the suit or therent for two years immediately preceding suchcommencement, whichever is less, is deposited in Court. Mr. Variar raised two points before me. (1) Section 4 (1) (b) has no applicationas his client is not seeking sale of the holding in regard to which rent is payable. (2) That the respondent to be entitled to relief under the Act must pay two years' rent as claimed in the appeal. There is considerable force in the first contention advanced by him but the words are wide enough to take in the sale of holding though the rent is not due in res-pect of that holding but in respect of a different holding. Further the intention of the legislature in enacting in quick succession so many Acts is to provide relief to tenants so that their holdings may not be sold before the contemplated Tenancy Legislation becomes law. If that is the intention there cannot be distinction on principle between the sate of the holding for rent payable in respect of the holding and for the recovery of rent payable in respect of a different holding In either case the holding of the tenant would be lost to him before the legislature brought in the contemplated legislation. In the circumstances I am inclined to put upon the words used in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 a wider interpretation which would bring within their scope a sale of a holding for rent due in respect of a different holding. I cannot also agree with his second contention. Under Act XVII of 1946 Section 4 (2) (i) says that :

'In the case of a suit instituted before the commencement of this Act, the arrears of rent accrued due until the date of the commencement of this Act, at the rate claimed in the plaint or an amount equivalent to rent for two years at the rate aforesaid whichever is less.'

Section 4 (2) Act XXIV of 1949 omitted the words 'at the rate aforesaid' after the words 'rent for two years immediately preceding such commencement'. It, therefore, follows that the rent for two years immediately preceding such commencement need not be at the rate claimed in the suit or in the appeal. In this case the rate of rent payable was found by the District Judge and that amount was deposited. The deposit so made satisfied the condition under Section 4 (2-A).

2. In the result the order of the lower Court is correct and the revision is dismissed without costs here.


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