In Re: Narayanaswami Reddi and another

Ramaswami, J.—This is a revision petition which is sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Combater in I. A. No. 198 of 1954 in O.S. No. 358 of 1952. The facts are : The petitioners before us sought the benefits of Madras Act V of 1954 and the learned Subordinate Judge declined to extend the concession asked for on the ground that the claim made against the petitioners was for possession of property with mense profits on the ground that they were trespassers into the lands and that by no stretch of imagination it can be said the such a claim for mense profits will amount to a "debt" within the meaning of Act V of 1954 as it is not a claim arising out of a contract, express or implied, but a claim arising out of illegal and wrongful possession of the lands.

The short point for determination is whether this view of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct.

The term "debt" has been defined in S. 2 (b) of the Act as meaning any sum of money which a person is liable to pay under a contract (express or implied) for consideration received and includes rent in cash or kind which a person is liable to pay or deliver in respect of the lawful use and occupation of land. Then the exception states that "debt" does not include rent or compensation for the use and occupation of immovable property not being the house property, accrued due after the 31st March 1953.

It is quite true that in this case the use and occupation of immovable property were earlier than 31st March 1953. But the debt has not arisen from a contract for consideration received and this is not a case of rent in cash or kind which a person is liable to pay or deliver in respect of the lawful use and occupation of land. On the other hand, as pointed out by the learned Subordinate judge, it is a case of there being no contract at all, either express or implied, and secondly, damages for unlawful occupation of land. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and this revision petition is dismissed.