G. PONNIAH THEVAR versus NELLAYAM PERUMAL PILLAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 15-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
446 
G. PONNIAH TREVAR 
v. 
NELLAYAM PERUMAL PILLAI AND OTHERS 
December 15, 1976 
(A. N. RAY, C.J. M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, s. 2(e) "Landlord", whe-
t~er relates only Ir;> creator of lease-Section 3 ( 1) whether protects tenancy 
rzghts created by /lie-estate holder ;extending beyond his life-time-Provisions ot 
Act, whether prospective. 
C 
T~e plaintiffs-respondents· who became owners of the land in dispute, as. 
remainder-men, sned to evict the appellant, a cultivating tenant, on the ground 
that his tenancy rights created by Annamalai Ammal, a life-estate holder hact 
ceased with her death. The appellant claimed protection under s. 3 ( 1) of the 
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The respondents contended 
that such protection was only available against the creator of a lease, to persons 
who were cultivating tenants in 1955 when the Act came into force, and not ti> 
the appellant who became a cultivating tenant in 1961. The eviction-suit was. 
D 
decreed by the District Court and the High Court. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowin~ the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The statutory definition of the term "tandlord" relates not only 
to· the person who created the lease but contemplates and takes in every succes-
sive holder who could be entitled to evict a tenant. 
That person can only be 
one who has the right, at the time of filing the suit, to realise rents or evict 
persons in wrongful occupation. 
[4490-H] 
(2) The terms of the statutory protection apply to all tenancie11 govern-
ed by the Act irrespective of the nature of rights of the person who leased the 
· land ~o long as the lessor was entitled to create a tenancy. [447E] 
The Court observed-
The Madras High Court's view that a life estate holder cannot create 
a 
tenancy which could last beyond his life-time, applied to statutory tenancies 
runs counter not only to the principles underlying creation of statutory tenancy 
rights in agricultural land, through out the country, but is in conflict with tht: 
particular statutory protection conferred upon cultivating tenants in the State of 
·~
Madras. [447E-F] 
(3) The provisions of the Act are prospective· except for section 4(1) and 
even s. 4 (1) shows that the protection was not meant merely for those who 
were cultivating tenants in 1.955. The provisions became enforceable as soon 
as the Act became operative and there is nothing in the Act to show that it 
ceased to be operative at any time or was limited in its operation only as 
a 
protection given to persons who were cultivating tenants in 1955. [450B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1976, 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
29-1-1976 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 468/75). 
K. S. Ramamurthi and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and Miss Veena 
Devi Khanna, for respondents Nos. 2-4. 
,J 
~ 
) 
~' 
) 
G. PONNIAH TREVAR v. N. P. PILLAI (Beg, J.) 
447 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-This appeal by special leave raises quite a .simple question 
of interpretation of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants 
Protection Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'th~ Act'), wh~ch, we 
think, have been ignored entirely by the Madras High Court m the 
judgment under appeal. 
The undisputed facts :.re : one Annamalai Pillai died leaving behind 
two widows, namely, Annamalai Ammal and Veerayee. The last. m~n­
tioned lady instituted a suit No. 482 of 1927 in the Court of the D1stnct 
Munsif, Periyakulam, for partitioning the properties of the deceased: 
impleading the other widow and a nephew of the d~ceased Annam2h! 
Pillai as defendants. That suit ended in a compromise dated 6th July, 
1935. Under the terms of the compromise decree, some land was given 
to Annamalai Ammal for enjoyment during her life time, and, thereafter, 
absolutely to the sons of the second defendant of suit No. 482 of 19~7. 
Annamalai Ammal died on 26th July, 1968. She had, however, dunng 
her life time, inducted a tenant, G. Ponniah Thevar, the appellant before 
us, by means of a lease dated 27th March, 1961. After the death of 
Annamalai Ammal, the plaintiffs-respondents, as remainder-men, sued 
to evict the appellant, the cultivating tenant, on the ground that his 
tenancy rights did not eirnre beyond the life time of Annamalai Ammal. 
The suit for eviction, decreed by t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.