K.T. Seshadri Iyengar and others vs A.E. Govindarajulu Chettiar and others

Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—This civil revision petition arises from the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruvallur, impleading one A. E. Govindarajulu Chettiar as a party respondent to certain proceedings initiated by the petitioners under S. 4 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The case for the petitioners, who claim to be the landlords, was that) there was default on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 herein, their tenants, in the matter of payment of rent for a period of six years, and that they should be evicted. The tenants denied the title of the petitioners and pleaded that the first respondent herein, A. E. Govindarajulu Chettiar, was the owner of the lands to whom they had been executing muchilikas. The Revenue Court, on an application made in that behalf by the first respondent, Impleaded him as a party to the proceedings. That was evidently made with a view to adjudicate the question as to whether which among them, namely, the petitioners and the first respondent is the owner of the land. The question is not within the competence of the Revenue Court to decide. Mr. Venkatarama Sarma appearing for the respondents has referred to and relied on R. 8(ii) of the Rules made under Madras Act XXV of 1955, which confers on the Revenue Court power in regard to addition of parties. But the addition of parties in proceedings under the Act should be consistent with the jurisdiction which the Court possesses. If the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title in a particular case, it could not purport to act under the power conferred by R. 8(ii) and implead a party for the purpose of such an adjudication. Mr. Venkatarama Sarma next contends that the presence of the first respondent as a party will be necessary for adjudicating upon the question whether there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4. I do not see how it will be so. It will undoubtedly be open to the tenants to plead that the petitioners were not the landlords; for sustaining the plea they can examine the first respondent as their witness; and prove that they are not the tenants of the petitioners. It is not essential that the first respondent should be a party for that purpose. The order of the lower Court cannot therefore be sustained. It is set aside. This civil revision petition is allowed and the respondents will pay the costs of the petitioners.