Summary
Cultivating tenants were ordered to be evicted by the Revenue Court under Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 for allegedly felling trees and digging pits, on the strength of a civil court Commissioner's report, and the High Court affirmed the order in revision while also allowing the landowners' second appeal. The Court set the eviction aside: there was no cogent evidence of any act destructive of or injurious to the land, pruning of trees by itself would not attract Section 3(2)(b), and the Act, being a beneficial statute enacted to protect cultivating tenants, must be construed in their favour.
Issues
- Whether there was cogent material to show that the tenants had cut trees or dug up the land and thereby caused substantial damage so as to bring the case within Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.
- Whether the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal and in affirming, in revision, the Revenue Court's order of eviction.
- How the provisions of a beneficial statute enacted to protect cultivating tenants from eviction are to be construed.
Provisions considered
- Section 3 and Section 3(2)(b), Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955Section 3 bars eviction of a cultivating tenant at the landlord's instance, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, subject to Section 3(2)(b), which withdraws protection from a tenant who has done any act or been guilty of negligence destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop, or who has altogether ceased to cultivate. The Court held that eviction under this exception is justified only on cogent, credible and reliable evidence of gross violation; here nothing showed such acts, and even pruning of trees would not suffice. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22)
- Section 6-B (revision by High Court), Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955The Revenue Divisional Officer is deemed a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 CPC and his orders are revisable by the High Court. The High Court, exercising this revisional jurisdiction, affirmed the Revenue Court's eviction order in what the Court described as a slipshod manner. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoked through Section 6-B of the 1955 Act. The High Court affirmed the Revenue Court's order, which had mechanically relied on the Commissioner's report, without proper scrutiny. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Held
- Under Section 3 of the 1955 Act no cultivating tenant can be evicted from his holding at the instance of the landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a court or otherwise, subject to Section 3(2)(b): a tenant who has done any act or been guilty of negligence destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop thereon, or who has altogether ceased to cultivate, loses the protection and is liable to eviction. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- There was nothing on record to indicate that the tenants were negligent or had done anything injurious to the land or crops; having cultivated the land since 1955-60 they would be more interested in protecting it. Even assuming that trees were pruned, that by itself would not bring the case within Section 3(2)(b). The Revenue Court mechanically relied on the Commissioner's report appointed in the civil suit, and the High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC affirmed that order in a slipshod manner. (¶¶ 14, 20)
- The High Court also erred in allowing the second appeal filed by the landowners and thereby interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in favour of the tenants. (¶ 21)
- The 1955 Act was enacted solely to protect cultivating tenants from forcible dispossession by landlords, and its provisions must be interpreted so that tenants are ultimately protected and not thrown out at the instance of landlords. Only when there is cogent, credible and reliable evidence of gross violation of Section 3(2)(b) may the Revenue Court order eviction. (¶ 22)
- Enactments like the 1955 Act are meant for the purposes they proclaim; their effect cannot be whittled down by forensic sophistry and courts should not become tools for defeating clearly expressed statutory intentions (G. Ponniah Thevar). Beneficent construction requires giving the widest possible meaning; where two interpretations are possible, the one that gives relief and protects the intended benefit must be chosen, and in case of doubt such Acts are to be read as leaning in favour of tenants. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The connected appeals filed by another branch of the respondents' family claiming to be owners were not examined on merits, since those claimants had already instituted O.S. No. 302/2009 in the civil court, which is to be decided on its own merits. (¶¶ 13, 27)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-7466 of 2011 allowed; the High Court's order in Civil Revision Petition No. 4052/2008 set aside and, consequently, the Revenue Court's order of eviction also set aside; respondents directed not to interfere with the appellants' possession save in accordance with law. Connected Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7469 of 2011 disposed of, with O.S. No. 302/2009 to be decided by the trial court on its own merits; pending applications disposed of.