Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 225 (KER)

Ammad v. Kunhammad

1966-08-23

T.C.RAGHAVAN

body1966
Judgment :- 1. A short and interesting question regarding the interpretation of S.53 of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act XXXIII of 1951 comes up for consideration in this case. The admitted relevant facts may be stated. 2. The plaintiff-appellant obtained a melcharth with arrears of rent; and he filed a suit for the arrears of rent for 1111 to 1121. While the suit was pending, the tenant-respondents deposited the rent for 1120 to 1128. The question for consideration is whether such deposit would wipe out the previous arrears as contemplated by S.53. 3. The trial court followed the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Manayil Krishnan Kutty v. Manikkath Govinda Menon (69 Law Weekly 433). Govinda Menon J., who spoke for the Court, observed in the said ruling that since Act XXXIII of 1951 was prospective, all payments contemplated by S.53 should be made after the commencement of the Act and before the twelve months mentioned in that section. In other words, the learned judge said that for giving benefit under S.53 payments made prior to the commencement of Act XXXIII of 1951 should not be taken into consideration. The lower appellate court held that after the amendment of S.53 by S.6 of Act XXII of 1956 the position was different: it held that the payment of rent for 1120 to 1128 wiped out the previous arrears. 4. With due respect to the learned judges, who constituted the Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Govinda Menon and Ramaswami JJ.), I prefer to take a different view on the question. The reasoning of the Division Bench is that since the section starts with the expression "If before the expiry of twelve months from the commencement of this Act", all the payments contemplated by the section must be after the commencement of the Act. I may point out that this expression is used to note the point of time from which the twelve months have to be calculated: in other words, the expression is not intended to make it obligatory that all the payments under the section should be made after the commencement of the Act. The section is certainly prospective as the Division Bench has held; but this does not necessarily mean that all the payments should be after the commencement of the section. The section is certainly prospective as the Division Bench has held; but this does not necessarily mean that all the payments should be after the commencement of the section. The relevant and real question is whether the rent for the six agricultural years mentioned in the section (1944-45 to 1949-50) both years inclusive have been paid before the expiry of the twelve months mentioned therein. If the arrears for those years have been paid before the said time (not necessarily within the said twelve months), the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the section, namely, all his previous arrears will be wiped out. This intention of the legislature is fairly clear; and this has also been made clearer by S.6 of Act XXII of 1956. 5. Another point urged by the counsel of the appellant is that an assignee from a landlord is not bound by the provisions of S.53. Putting the idea differently, the argument is that against an assignee from a landlord the tenant cannot claim relief under S.53. The counsel brings to my notice the definition of the term'landlord' in S.3(19) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, which defines the term to mean a person under whom a tenant holds and to whom he is liable to pay rent or michavaram and includes a jenmi. In this connection it will be worth while to note the definition of another term, 'melcharth', which is defined by the next subsection to mean a transfer by the landlord of part of his interest in any land held by his tenant by which the transferee is entitled to evict such tenant. In the case before me the appellant is not a mere assignee of the arrears of rent: therefore, the question whether a landlord will include an assignee from him of the arrears of rent alone does not arise for consideration. The appellant is a melcharthdar, who is a transferee of a part of the interest of the landlord in the land. It must follow that the melcharthdar is also a landlord, against whom the tenant can claim relief under S.53. Therefore, this contention cannot also avail. 6. Lastly, the appellant's counsel draws my attention to S.24 of Act VII of 1954, which amended S.53 of Act XXXIII of 1951. That section states that the deposit of arrears should be for six years from 1947-48 to 1952-53. Therefore, this contention cannot also avail. 6. Lastly, the appellant's counsel draws my attention to S.24 of Act VII of 1954, which amended S.53 of Act XXXIII of 1951. That section states that the deposit of arrears should be for six years from 1947-48 to 1952-53. The argument is that since in this case the rent for the period mentioned in S.24 of Act VII of 1954 has not been deposited, the tenant is not entitled to relief. Firstly, since the tenant has deposited rent from 1120 to 1128 (1944-45 to 1952-53), the deposits will satisfy even S.24 of Act VII of 1954. Secondly all the deposits were prior to 1129 (before 1954), when Act XXXIII of 1951 was still in force. The deposits were all under that Act; and by S.53 of that Act all the previous arrears stood wiped out even before Act VII of 1954 came into force. Therefore this argument is also rejected. 7. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave. Dismissed.