AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—In all the three writ petitions, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants(Protection from Eviction) Act, 1997 (Tamil Act 20
of 1997) has been challenged as illegal, ultra vires, null and void in so far as the Trichy District in Tamil Nadu is concerned in respect of lands
owned by the petitioner in each of the writ petitions. It is sufficient to refer to the contents in any one of the affidavits filed in support of all the writ
petitions as common questions have been raised in all the three writ petitions.
Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1997. (hereinafter called as Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1997 received the assent of
the Presidential 22.4.1997 and the same has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 25.4.1997. The
Statement of objects and reasons as set out in the L.A.Bill No. 17 of 1997 reads thus:-
Certain areas in the Slate have been affected by drought and floods in recent years and agricultural have lost their crops and are unable to pay the
lease rent. Hence, they face eviction for default in payment of lease rent. Certain cultivating tenants have made representations to the Government
that be given relief by postponing the collection of arrears of lease rent accrued due to the landlord on or before the 30th day of June 1996 and
outstanding on the date of publication of the proposed Act or rent payable for the first year ending with the 30th day of 1997 or both for a period
upto 30th June 1999 in the drought affected areas and flood affected areas in the State and that the tenants may not be evicted for non-payment of
the said lease rent amount during the period of postponement. It has also decided that the lease rent for the faslis commencing from 1st July 1997
shall be payable in time and that the lease rent arrears now postponed shall become payable on 1st July, 1999.
The Bill seeks to give effect to the above decisions.
The said Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of the State and was passed. The Act also received the assent of the President on
22.4.1997. The object of the Act was to provide protection from eviction of cultivating tenants, who are in arrears with respect to the rent payable
to the landlord.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 1provides that it applies to all cultivating tenants in the ""drought affected"" areas and ""flood affected"" areas. Sub-
Section(3) of Section 1provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the first July, 1996 and shall remain in force upto and
inclusive of the 30th day of June. 1999. The term ""drought affected"" area has been defined as specified in Schedule I of the Act and the term ""flood
affected"" areas has also been defined as specified in Schedule II of the Act.
Section 3of the Act provides that during the continuance of this Act, no cultivating tenant shall be evicted or any part thereof at the instance of
the landlord whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise on the ground that the cultivating tenant is in arrear with respect to
the rent payable to the landlord or to the public trust as the case may be.
For the purpose of Section 4 and Section 7, Special Definition has been made by the explanation in Section 3 as the total amount of arrears of
rent accrued due to the landlord on or before 30th June 1996 and outstanding on the date of publication of the Act or rent payable for the fasli
year ending with 30th June, 1997 or both, Section 4provides that proceedings or applications for eviction of a cultivating tenant on the ground that
he is in arrears with respect to the rent payable to the landlord and pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer or Court or other Authority shall
stand stayed.
Section 5 provides for exclusion of time for limitation. Section 6 provides that all applications for the eviction of a cultivating tenant and all suits
and proceedings stayed under the Act, shall after the expiration of the Act, be proceeded with subject to the provisions of any law, which may then
be in force, from the stage which had been reached, when the application, suit or other proceedings was stayed.
Section 7 provides for right to restoration of possession of eviction of cultivating tenant. In terms of Section 7, any cultivating tenant, who had
been evicted from any land on or before the 1st day of July, 1996, but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Gazette on the ground
that such cultivating tenant was in arrears with respect to the rent payable to the landlord, may, on application to the Revenue Court or various
Officer within a period of three months after the date of the said publication of the Act, be entitled to be restored to the possession and to hold it
with all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a cultivating tenant.
Section 8provides that the provisions of the Act will have over-riding effect with respect to certain of the enactments, mentioned therein.
In the present writ petitions, admittedly, the petitioners are the land owners, who have filed eviction petitions, secured orders of eviction against
their respective tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent and orders of eviction have been passed and put in execution by the respective
writ petitioners and they have also taken possession of the land after first day of July, 1996 and before the publication of the Act in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette.
The Petitioners, though challenged the provisions of the entire enactment, their challenge is confined to Section 7 of the Act, which if allowed to
stand, will enable the respective tenants to seek restoration of the land, which had already been taken possession after the first day of July, 1996
and before 25th of April, 1997. The provision regarding restoration of the land to the evicted tenant or the restoration of possession u/s 7 is the
subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions.
The petitioners also challenged the Schedules I and II as according to them, Trichy Perumbidugu Mutharayar District finds place in both the
Schedules I and II as drought affected area as well as flood affected area. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the inclusion of
Tiruchirappalli Perumbidugu Mutharayar District both in Schedules 1 and II is an inconsistency and demonstrates non application of mind and
hence the enactment is ultra vires and unenforceable.
As seen from the object, the legislation has been undertaken to give relief to the cultivating tenants as they have suffered from natural calamities
such as drought and flood and the said period or drought or flood ranges for a period of three years and above. As such, it cannot be assumed that
there has been inconsistency between the two schedules. Factually also, there has been flood and drought as well in the District or at least in major
portion of the District during the past three years.
Admittedly, the petitioner in each of the writ petitions has secured orders of eviction on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay the rent
and in execution of the orders of eviction, the writ petitioners have taken possession during the relevant period. The tenants in each of the writ
petitions have already taken out an application for restoration of possession in terms of Section 7 of the Act and hence the present writ petitions.
Here and now, it has to be pointed out that identical provisions had been made in the earlier enactments and they were the subject matter of
challenge before this Court as well as before the Apex Court the only difference between the present enactment and the earlier enactments being
the period of arrears and the period during which the tenant had been evicted, who is entitled to be restored back to the possession.
Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 12917 of 1997, Mr. Raja Kalifulla, counsel for petitioner in W.P.
No. 12658 of 1997 and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy in W.P. No. 12482 of 1997.
Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel took pains and elaborately argued the matter, Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the
following decisions of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts reported in:
a. Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala (A.I.R. 1972 S.C.2097)
b. Sangappa v. Mahammadanif Saheb (A.I.R. 1964 Mysore 43).
c. Abdul Rahiman v. Vithal Arjun (A.I.R. 1958 Bombay 94)
d. K.N.M.N. Nambudiripad v. State (A.I.R. 1976 Kerala 51)
e. Narayanan Nair v. State (A.I.R. 1971 Kerala 98)
f. Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer (A.I.R. 1953 S.C.373)
g. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raja Reddy (A.I.R. 1967 S.C.I458).
h. State of Haryana v. Karnal Co.op., F.S. Ltd. (A.I.R. 1994 S.C.I) and
I. Ramanlal Gulab Chand Shah v. State of Gujarat (A.I.R.1969 S.C.168)
and sought to contend that interest in land of the respective writ petition is sought to be acquired and that the enactment is invalid as it is not an
estate.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the entire enactment, provided for discharging of arrears of rent is not entitled to
protection of Article 31-A of the Constitution and it is violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.
As already pointed out, the question is no longer res integra. In M.Alagirisamy Pillai v. Spl Deputy Collector (R.C) Tiruchirappali (A.I.R. 1994
S.C.483) the challenge made to Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1976) which
provision is identical in all respects to the present Section 7 of the Act has been negatived. As stated above, the only difference being period for
which protection has been given for the tenants and for which the tenant was in arrears..
Apart from the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in respect of identical provision viz.. the
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act 1976 Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1976 was die subject matter in Writ Appeals Nos.1
17 and 119 to 121 of 1977 (Minor Gokulakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others) has negatived identical challenge.
Section 4of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1976 contained identical provisions, Which was challenged on the ground that the State Legislature had
no competency to enact the Act and the impugned Act violated Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The
Writ Petitions Were dismissed upholding the impugned enactments and that it was within the legislative competency of the Tamil Nadu Legislature
and also that the Act had the protection under Article 31-A of the Constitution. The decision of the single Judge was confirmed in; the Writ
appeals. The Division Bench has held that the legislation falls under Entry 18 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and Article 31-A
applied to the impugned legislation.
The said Division Bench judgment Writ Appeals No. 117 and 119 to 121 of 1977 dated 5.2.1980 was followed by this. Court, while Tamil
Nadu Act 36 of 1976 was challenged. Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court upholding the validity of Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1976,
on appeal, the Apex Court Alagirisamy Pillai v. Special Deputy Collector. Revenue Court and others (A.I.R. 1994 S.C.483), affirmed the Division
Bench judgment of this Court. The earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 117 and 119 to 121 of 1977 dated 5.2.1980 has
become final.
In AIR 1994 S.C.483 (supra), the Apex Court while considering the validity of Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1976 has held thus:-
It had been urged before the High Court that Entry 18 applied only to legislation related to land or rights where the relationship of landlord and
tenant subsists. Section 4 of the Act 18 of 1976, it was argued, related to a case where relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist after
the land has been taken possession of by the landlord and is, therefore, beyond the scope of Entry 18 and that the legislation is not entitled to the
protection under Article 31-A. These arguments had been repelled finding that the entry has to be construed ancillary or subsidiary matter arising
out of tenancy would be within the terms of the entry.
The legislation relates to the rights of persons who satisfy the status of tenant at the commencement of the Act. It cannot be disputed that the Act
seeks to protect interest of cultivating tenants and that it is a measure of agrarian reform, the principal Act is included in the 9th Schedule of the
Constitution as Item 42. In the present case, the legislation challenged on identical grounds. The impugned provisions in Act 36 of 1976 are
identical to Section 4 of the Act 18 of 1976 upheld by the Madras High Court. We have carefully considered the judgment of the Division Bench.
We find no reason to differ from the reasoning and conclusions drawn in that case. The appellants case is fully covered by that judgment. We are,
therefore of the view that the High Court was right in upholding the validity of the impugned provisions in Section 7of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating
Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act 36 of 1976).
Identical contentions raised by Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan had received the consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 117
and 119 to 121 of 1977 and did not find favour with the Division Bench.
In the circumstances, this Court, which is bound by the earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A. Nos. 117 and 119 to 121 of 1977 holds that
in the light of the said Division Bench judgment of this Court, it is. not necessary to refer to various authorities relied upon by Mr. T.R.
Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel and to discuss the matter in detail. That apart, identical provision has already been upheld by the Division Bench of
this Court as well as by the Apex Court in AIR 1994 S.C.483 (supra) in respect of Tamil Nadu Act 36 of 1976.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that provision has been made with respect to the arrears of rent for which the eviction has
already been ordered as in the earlier matters. It has to be pointed out that Section 6 of the Act provides that all applications for eviction of
cultivating tenant and all such proceedings under this Act, after the expiration of the Act, be proceeded with subject to the provisions of any law,
which may then be in force from the stage which had been reached when the application, suit or other proceedings are strayed.
Therefore, it is evident that the legislature had undertaken to make a provision in this respect. In Sarojini Ammal v. Stole (A.I.R. 1980 Madras
16 (DD). a Division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act ( Tamil Nadu Act 21 of
1972). Identical contentions were the subject matter for consideration before the said Division Bench and it had also been rejected.
This Court, following the earlier Division Bench Judgment in W.A. Nos. 117 and 119 to 121 of 1997 as well as judgment of Apex Court in
AIR 1994 S.C.483 (supra), holds that there are no merits in all these writ petitions and that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, all the three writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently. W.M.P. Nos. 20093. 20377. 20762
and 20763 of 1997 are also dismissed.