Case: L.R. Ganapathi Thevar Vs. Sri Navaneethaswaraswami Devasthanam,Sikki

Madras High Court and one of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The first decision to which our attention was invited is Mummina Demudu v. D. Papayyaraju Caru, AIR 1944 Mad 136 . That is a decision of Horwill, J. sitting singly. Therein it was held that when the legislature spoke in Section 8 (5) of the tenant acquiring occupancy right during the period between the passing of the find decree and the commencement of the Act it was referring to acquisition of occupancy rights otherwise than under the Act; the legislature must have intended by Section 8 (5) to exempt from the general operation of Section 6, all cases where the landholder had obtained a decree prior to 1st November, 1933, unless the tenant subsequent to the passing of the final decree had acquired occupancy right independently of the Act. Consequently where the landlord obtained a final decree referred to in Section 8 (5) before 1st November, 1933, the tenant can not be said to have acquired occupancy rights under Section 6 merely because he was in possession on 30th June 1934 so as to render Section 8 (5) inapplicable. We fail to see how this decision bears on the rule with which we are concerned in this appeal. In K. Atchanna v. Jayanti Seetharamaswami, AIR 1950 Mad 357 , Viswanatha Sastri, J. differed from the view taken by Horwill, J. in the decision cited above. This decision also does not bear on the question of law we are considering. In Thota Seshayya v. M. Vedanta Narasimhacharyulu, ILR (1955) Mad 1151 = (AIR 1955 Mad 252 ) a Bench of the Madras High Court while considering vires of Section 8 (5) observed:"We are satisfied that Section 8 (5) is giving some limited privileges for a limited period to the landholders who have obtained decrees before 1st November 1933, has acted on a classification based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the object sought to be attained, and that the classification cannot be called arbitrary or without any substantial basis, and must be upheld as perfectly valid and not impugning in the least on Article 14 or 15 of the Constitution of India. We may add that tenants who have been given new occupancy rights under the third amendment where they had none before cannot reasonably complain of the restrictions put on the acquisition of such new occupancy rights in a few cases where justice requires such restrictions as in Section 8 (5). The tenants acquired the right only under those conditions and cannot very well complain about them."From these observations we are asked to spell out that the learned Judges had come to the conclusion that all contracts entered into between the landholders and their tenants during the twelve years period mentioned in Section 8 (5) came to an end at the end of that period. In the first place this conclusion does not necessarily flow from the observations quoted above. Even if such a conclusion can be spelled out the observations in question are mere obiter on the question or decision before us. That was also the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 1955-2 Mad LJ l12 = (AIR 1955 Mad 473 ) (supra).13. In V. Ramchandrayya v. M. Ranganavakamma, 1957-2 Andh WR 114 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Madras High Court in ILR (1955) Mad 1151 = (AIR 1955 Mad 252 ) (supra). Therein again the Court was not called upon to consider the scope of Section 8 (5).14. For the reasons already mentioned we are unable to hold that the appellant had acquired occupancy right in the suit properties.15. This takes us to the question whether the appellant can be considered as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Act, 1955. If he can be considered as a cultivating tenant then he cannot be evicted from the suit properties except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. In the Cultivating Tenants Act as it originally stood the definition of a cultivating tenant was as follows:"Cultivating tenant in relation to any land means a person who carries on personal cultivation on such land, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes (i) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of tenancy agreement."If this definition had remained unaltered then on the basis of the findings of the trial court and the High Court the appellant could have been held as a cultivating tenant, as cultivation today is a complex process involving both mental as well as physical activity. But by the time this case came to be instituted the definition of cultivating tenant was amended by adding an explanation to the original definition. That explanation reads:"A person is said to carry on personal cultivation on a land when he contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of that land."16. The true effect of the amended definition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mohamed Abubucker Labbai v. The Zamindar of Ettayapuram Estate Koilapatti, 1961-1 Mad LJ 256.Therein it was held that in order to fall within the definition of cultivating tenant a person should carry on personal cultivation which again requires that he should contribute physical labour. The use of physical labour includes physical strain, the use of muscles and sinews. Mere supervision of work, or maintaining of accounts or distributing the wages will not be such contribution of physical labour as to attract the definition.This view was upheld by this Court in S. N. Sudalaimuthu v. Palanivandayam, 1966-1 SCR 450 = (AIR 1966 SC 469 ) to which one of us was a party. In view of the said decision, it follows that on the facts found in this case, the appellant cannot be considered as a cultivating tenant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. We are unable to agree with Mr. Pattabhiraman that the High Court did not finally deride the appellants claim to occupancy right in the suit properties m A. S. No. 241 of 1949 and that it merely made some tentative observations in respect of the same leaving the matter for a fresh decision by the trialHigh Court has specifically gone into the appellants claim to occupancy right, examined the relevant provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, took into consideration the decisions bearing on the point and thereafter came to a firm conclusion that the appellants claim is unsustainable. The case was remanded to the trial court for the trial of the issues that have not been decided earlier. Therefore we have now to see whether the plea of occupancy right can be gone into afresh.6. There is hardly any doubt that the trial court could not have gone into that issue again. It was bound by the Judgment of the High Court. It is also clear that that decision was binding on the Bench which heard the appeal. On this question judicial opinion appears to be unanimous and it is a reasonable view to take.7. We are unable to agree with the contention of the respondent that the decision of the High Court of Madras in A. S. No. 241 of 1949 on its file precludes the appellant from reagitating in this Court the plea that he has occupancy right in the suit properties.As it is open to the appellant to recanvass the correctness of the decision of the High Court regarding his claim for occupancy right, we shall now go into the merits of that claim. The suit land was in an Inam village but it was not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act as it originally stood; but it became an estate by virtue of the amending Act XVIII of 1936. The lands in dispute are not admittedly private lands. Prior to the amending Act came into force the respondent had obtained a decree for possession against the tenants who were then in the suit lands. It is also not in dispute that no tenant had obtained any occupancy right in those lands prior to 1936. Therefore all that we have to see is whether the appellant can be said to have acquired occupancy right in arose lands in view of the leases in his favour. For deciding this question we have to examine the scope of S. 6 (1) and Section 8 (5) of the Act as they now stand.The parties are agreed that the facts of this case satisfy the requirements of Section 8 (5) of the Act.That being so the respondent was entitled for a period of twelve years from the commencement of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 to admit any person to the possession of the suit lands on such terms as may be agreed upon between him and his lessee notwithstanding anything contained in the Act while Section 6 (1) is subject to the provisions of the Act, Section 8 (5) is not controlled by any other provision of the Act Therefore if the case falls both within Section 6 (1) as well as Section 8 (5) then the governing provision will be Sec. 8 (5) and not Section 6was urged on behalf of the appellant that the object of the Act is to confer occupancy right on the tenants in respect of all lands included the Inam excepting the Private lands of the Inamdar; at the same time the legislature thought that in respect of lands coming within the scope of Section 8 (5) a period of grace should be allowed to the Inamdar so that he may adjust his affairs; once that period is over all lands other than private lands would be governed by the provisions of Section 6 (1). Another facet of the same argument was that Section 6 (1) is the main provision; it has general application; that provision contains the policy and purpose of the law; Section 8 (5) is an exception; therefore Section 6 (1) should be construed liberally and Section 8 (5) should be strictly construed with a view to advance the purpose of the law. Further we were ask to take into aid the policy laid down in the proviso to Section 8 (5) while ascertaining the legislative intention behind Section 8 (5).(5).14. For the reasons already mentioned we are unable to hold that the appellant had acquired occupancy right in the suit properties.The true effect of the amended definition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mohamed Abubucker Labbai v. The Zamindar of Ettayapuram Estate Koilapatti, 1961-1 Mad LJ 256.Therein it was held that in order to fall within the definition of cultivating tenant a person should carry on personal cultivation which again requires that he should contribute physical labour. The use of physical labour includes physical strain, the use of muscles and sinews. Mere supervision of work, or maintaining of accounts or distributing the wages will not be such contribution of physical labour as to attract the definition.This view was upheld by this Court in S. N. Sudalaimuthu v. Palanivandayam, 1966-1 SCR 450   = (AIR 1966 SC 469  ) to which one of us was a party. In view of the said decision, it follows that on the facts found in this case, the appellant cannot be considered as a cultivating tenant.