AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mockett, J.—The petitioner is an agriculturist. He owed no rent for fasli 1345 or for any previous fasli but he did on the 3rd December,
1938, owe for faslis 1346 and 1347. On that date he made a payment declaring it to be in respect of fasli 1346 (Section 64 of the Madras Estates
Land Act). The respondent sought to bring the property to sale in respect of fasli 1347 before the Special Deputy Collector. The petitioner
claimed that, notwithstanding his declaration, the rent should be credited to fasli 1347 u/s 15(3) of Act IV of 1938. The petition was rejected by
the Special Deputy Collector. I think his order was right. Section 15(3) no doubt exempts from consideration any agreement or any payment u/s
64 of the Madras Estates Land Act and exacts that "" any payment of rent made by a tenant after the commencement of this Act shall be credited
towards the rent due by him for fasli 1347."" But Sub-section (3) is necessarily part of the main Section 15 and the proviso to Sub-section 1 of
Section 15 quite clearly states that ""no tenant shall have the benefit of this section"", which must include in my judgment Sub-section (3), ""unless he
has paid in respect of his holding the rent due for fasli 1347 on or before the 30th September, 1938.
That had not been done in this case because the rent was paid on the 3rd December, 1938. It was argued that Sub-section (3) was a self-
contained enactment and must be read by itself disregarding the rest of the section. It seems to me a strange proposition that when the beginning of
a section expressly excludes from the whole operation of the section a person who has not satisfied a certain condition it should afterwards be
argued that a sub-section of that section should be read entirely by itself. For this reason I consider that the order of the Special Deputy Collector
was right and this petition must be dismissed with costs.
It has been further argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of this Act at all because he does not come under the conditions in
Section 15(1) there being no arrears for 1345 fasli or before; but I do not consider it necessary to decide this point in view of my decision on the
main point argued.