Skip to content


Kamakshi Vs. Sinnachami Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1959)2MLJ512
AppellantKamakshi
RespondentSinnachami Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....under section 3(4)(b) of the madras cultivatings tenants protection act evicting him from the lands. the tenant is the petitioner. the respondent, who was the lessee from the owner of the property claimed that he had sub-let the lands to the petitioner orally and that about 13 kalams of paddy were due from him by way of rent. it was stated by the respondent in his petition that the petitioner surrendered possession soon after harvest of the kalam crop. it was then stated as follows. that the owner of the property again leased the property to the respondent and he was in actual possession of the lands having manured the lands and ploughed the same. while so, on 15th july, 1957, the petitioner entered the land unlawfully and wanted to plough. in this the petitioner was prevented by.....
Judgment:

Ramachandra Iyer, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Collector of Dindigul in C.T.P.A. No. 57 of 1957, whereby that Court held that the petitioner was in arrears and passed an order under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivatings Tenants Protection Act evicting him from the lands. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent, who was the lessee from the owner of the property claimed that he had sub-let the lands to the petitioner orally and that about 13 kalams of paddy were due from him by way of rent. It was stated by the respondent in his petition that the petitioner surrendered possession soon after harvest of the kalam crop. It was then stated as follows. That the owner of the property again leased the property to the respondent and he was in actual possession of the lands having manured the lands and ploughed the same. While so, on 15th July, 1957, the petitioner entered the land unlawfully and wanted to plough. In this the petitioner was prevented by the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner had denied the title of the respondent as landlord. Under those circusmtances an order for eviction was sought under Section 3 of Act XXV of 1955. The lower Court held that the petitioner was in arrears and passed the order as mentioned above.

2. Mr. Natesan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged before me that the lower Court was not competent to entertain the petition under Section 3 of the Act XXV of 1955- As I stated already, the respondent has made a definite allegation that the petitioner had surrendered possession and that some months afterwards trespassed into the property. On such surrender the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased between the parties, and therefore, if there was a trespass the respondent would have to approach the civil Court for remedy and not the revenue Court under the provisions of Section 3 of Act XXV of 1955. The lower Court would therefore have no jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction on the ground that after the termination of the tenancy the ex-tenant had trespassed into the property and was squatting on it. The result is this Revsion Petition has got to be allowed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.


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