S. Kasturiranga Iyengar, Receiver, O.S. No. 152 of 1955, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli vs Krishnaswami Reddiar and another

Kailasam, J.—These two petitions are filed by the Receiver appointed by the High Court for the properties in O.S. 152 of 1955, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. On petitions filed by the respondents in the two civil revision petitions, the Special Tahsildar, Rent Court, Lalgudi, fixed fair rents for the lands that are in the cultivation of the respondents. On appeal, the learned District Munsif, Turaiyur, also confirmed the orders of the Rent Court. In the civil revision petitions before me, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.G. Srinivasa Iyer, contended that the lease in this case was by the Receiver of Court and the Receiver is not a landlord within the meaning of the Act, and the tenant is not a cultivating tenant and therefore the respondents are not entitled to the rights of a cultivating tenant under the Act. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Nagu Reddi was the trustee of the disputed properties as well as other properties. It has been found as a fact by the Courts below that, in 1952, Nagu Reddi as trustee leased the properties to the respondents. It is alleged that Nagu Reddi improperly alienated the properties to various persons and the respondents continued to be lessees under one Jayalakshmi Ammal. There were disputes regarding the validity of the alienations and it was finally decided that these alienations were not valid. Pending appeal, the petitioner was appointed Receiver of the disputed properties and others properties and still continues to be as a Receiver, as per order of this Court. The Receiver attempted to lease out the properties by public auction but the respondents objected stating that they were cultivating tenants entitled to the rights under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and could not be dispossessed. The respondents in the civil revision petitions filed petitions before the Rent Court for fixing fair rent and the Rent Court fixed the fair rent which was confirmed on appeal by the District Munsif. These two petitions are against these orders fixing the fair rent.

Sri Srinivasa Aiyar Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on a recent decision of this Court in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, . In that case, the property was being leased under the direction of the Court by the guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act by public auction to the highest bidder. The petitioner in that civil revision petition was the successful bidder for the period from January 1962 to January 1963. In 1963, the property guardian wanted to lease out the property in accordance with the previous practice and in the public auction held, the respondent became the successful bidder for the subsequent year. When the respondent applied to the Court for directions as to delivery of possession, the former lessee resisted on the ground that he had acquired the rights under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The learned Chief Justice held that as the said property was under the control of the Court and the Court directed lease of the property by auction every year, the grant of the lease by the Receiver appointed by the Court during the pendency of the litigation would not entitle the lessee to claim the benefits of Act XXV of 1955. Learned Chief Justice further held that the same principle would apply to the case of a property guardian appointed by the Court acting under the directions of the Court for leasing out the minor''s properties.

Sri S. Palaniswami, Learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that on the facts, the case reported in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, is not applicable to the facts of the present case and that even if it is held that the decision is applicable, the decision required reconsideration by a Bench of this Court in view of the contrary view expressed in Serang Abdul Khadir Vs. Rajagopala Pandarayar and Others, by a Division Bench of this Court.

It has been found by both the Courts below that Nagu Reddi the trustee of the properties leased the lands in dispute to the respondents and that when the Act came into force in 1955 the respondents acquired rights under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The properties in dispute were alienated by Nagu Reddi in favour of his wife''s brother''s wife and the alienations were found to be not valid. The respondents continued to be in possession paying rent to Jayalakshmi Ammal, who according to the respondents was the person having title to the properties. That the respondents were tenants on the date when the Act came into force is found as a fact by the Courts below. The Receiver was appointed in 1958 and was directed to lease the properties by public auction. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondents having acquired the rights of a cultivating tenant under the Act their possession or their right to get fair rent fixed cannot be interfered with by appointment of a Receiver by a civil Court. In support of his contention be relied upon a decision reported in Narasimha Chettiar Vs. Muthuswami Gounder and Others, . It has been held that a Receiver can exercise all the powers except that of dispossessing the cultivating tenant and that he is entitled to get the cultivating tenant to attorn to him inasmuch as he has stepped into the shoes of the landlord for the time being; but "he cannot disposes him in contravention of the provisions of Madras Act XXV of 1955 and if he has to evict that cultivating tenant in pursuance of his management of the estate, he must do so only under the provisions of that Act." In Ghazani Mohamad Sahib v. Official Receiver 71 L.W. 367 it has been held that an assignee takes the property only as it was, on the date of the assignment and if on such date a third person has right over the property, the assignee takes it and subject to those rights. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the contract to adjust the rents or the rental out of the advance paid was binding on the Official Receiver with the consequence that the adjustment effected in pursuance thereof was equally binding on him.

The Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision reported in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the respondents here had acquired rights of a cultivating tenant long before the Receiver was appointed and sought to lease the properties by public-auction, whereas in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, the Court guardian leased the property under the directions of the Court and the lessee was for the first time put into possession by the order of the Court. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the decision in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, required reconsideration as a Division Bench of this Court in Serang Abdul Khadir Vs. Rajagopala Pandarayar and Others, rejected the contention that the Receiver would not fall within the definition of "landowner" in S. 2 (g) of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannayal Protection Act, 1952. The Bench held:

A Receiver virtually represents the real owner of the property in his possession. He would therefore be the owner for the time being of the property. No authority has been cited before us to the contrary.

S. 2 (g) of she Tanjore Pannayal Protection Act defines landowner as follows: ''landowner'' in relation to a pannaiyal means the owner of a land or other person deriving any right from him in respect thereof, who has engaged the pannaiyal for cultivating the said land.

The Bench took the view that the Receiver was the owner for the time being of the property and he virtually represented the real owner coming within the first Clause of the definition "landowner". In the Madras Cultivating Tenant Protection Act ''cultivating tenant'' is defined as follows: ''cultivating tenant'' in relation to any land means a person who carries on personal cultivation on such land, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied.

A tenant becomes a cultivating tenant if he carries on personal cultivation of such land under a tenancy agreement express or implied. The Section does not specifically require that the tenancy agreement should be with the landlord. But it was submitted that there is authority for the proposition that the tenancy agreement should be with the landlord alone. Even so, it may be difficult to contend that the Receiver is not the landlord in view of the powers that may be conferred by the Court under O. 40, R. 1 (d), C.P.C. The Receiver is entitled to bring and defend suits, collect rents and execute documents as the owner himself. Further S. 2, Cl. (e) of Madras Act XXV of 1955 defines landlord as a person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant. I do not see how a Receiver can be said to be a person not entitled to evict the cultivating tenant if powers are conferred on him under O. 40, C.P.C. To hold otherwise would mean that a Receiver cannot evict a cultivating tenant who is already on the land on any of the grounds specified under the Act. Though the decision of the Bench in Serang Abdul Khadir Vs. Rajagopala Pandarayar and Others, is under the Tanjore Pannaiyals Protection Act 1952, it lends support to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondent. I am therefore unable to say that there is no force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the decision in Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder, requires reconsideration. But it is unnecessary to pursue the discussion any further as it has been held that the respondents in this case became cultivating tenants under Nagu Reddi and Jayalakshmi Ammal long before the Receiver was appointed. Following the decision in Narasimha Chettiar Vs. Muthuswami Gounder and Others, I hold that the rights of the respondents as cultivating tenants cannot be affected by a subsequently appointed Receiver attempting to lease the properties. The Courts below were right in fixing fair rent. I see no ground to interfere in these civil revision petitions. They are dismissed, but no costs.