Judgment :- (KAILASAM J:) 1. These revision petitions are placed before the Bench for a decision as to whether the tenants who are entitled to permanent occupancy rights by virtue of a custom from a temple are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972). The petitioners are cultivating certain lands belonging to the respondents-temples. The tenants claim that they cannot be evicted by the trust and they have got a right to permanent occupancy. This is not disputed by the trust. 2. To answer the question, it is necessary to trace the recent course of legislations dealing with tenancy under various tenures in the State. The legislature felt that the tenants were being unjustly evicted and they needed protection. In order to protect the tenants from eviction, a series of enactments were passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature. In 1946, the Tamil Nadu Tenants and Ryots Protection Act, (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1946) was enacted. The preamble provided that it was necessary, pending further legislation, to provide for the temporary protection against eviction of tenants to whom the Malabar Tenancy Act 1929, applied and of tenants of private lands in estates governed by the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, and against sale of the holdings of such tenants and of ryots in such estates and to provide for the stay of suits and other proceedings relating to such eviction and sale, and therefore, the enactment was made. The purpose of this legislation was to protect the tenants from eviction. It applied to tenants to whom the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, applied and to tenants of private lands in estates governed by the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908. The legislation was intended to prevent sale of the holdings of such tenants and of ryots in such estates and to provide for the stay of suits and other proceedings relating to such eviction and sale. The legislation was intended to prevent sale of the holdings of such tenants and of ryots in such estates and to provide for the stay of suits and other proceedings relating to such eviction and sale. It may be noted that the legislature was conscious of the different tenures in the State and made the Act applicable to tenants to whom the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, applied and to tenants of private lands in estates governed by the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act 1908, against eviction and sale of the holdings and to provide for the stay of suits and other proceedings relating to such eviction and sale. Regarding lands under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act. 1908, the legislature kept a distinction between tenants of private lands in which the landlord was entitled to be in possession, but had leased it and ryots in such estates who were entitled to possession of the land, but whose holdings could be sold for arrears of rent. 3. The next piece of legislation was the Tanjore Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1953). This Act was intended to provide for the improvement of agrarian conditions in the district of Tanjore. The preamble stated that as in the district of Tanjore, the relations between landowners and their agents on the one hand, and the tenants and farm labourers on the other band, became strained resulting in the displacement of tenants and the dismissal of farm labourers and in agrarian crimes and disturbances, the enactment was made. It may be noted that the intention was to prevent displacement of tenants and the dismissal of farm labourers. The Act provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force in the whole of the district of Tanjore on 23rd August 1952 and it shall come into force in any other area in the adjoining districts in the State of Tamil Nadu on such date as the Government may by notification appoint. The Act is applicable to lands in which the landlords and their agents had a right to possession, and, it did not cover the case of tenants who bad permanent occupancy rights. 4. Then came the most important legislation on this subject, namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Tamilnadu Act 25 of 1955). The Act is applicable to lands in which the landlords and their agents had a right to possession, and, it did not cover the case of tenants who bad permanent occupancy rights. 4. Then came the most important legislation on this subject, namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Tamilnadu Act 25 of 1955). The Act was intended to protect from eviction of cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Act was made applicable to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu other than the areas to which the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1930) extended. The several provisions of the Act also make it clear that the purpose is only to pro tect the tenants from eviction by landlords who are entitled to evict the tenants, and the Act does not apply to tenants who hold permanent occupancy rights. The definition of the word ‘landlord’ makes it clear that he should be a person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding. ‘Cultivating tenant’ means a person who carries on personal cultivation of a land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. The definition would indicate that the personal cultivation should be of somebody elses land and that person should have the right to possess and a right to evict the tenant. It appears the Act was not intended to apply to persons who have permanent occupancy rights. The definition of the word ‘land’ in S. 2(d) also strengthens this view. A reading of a few of the sections of the Act also makes this position clear. S. 3 provides that no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding at the instance of the landlord except under the provisions of the Act. The section curtails the right to evict the tenant which presumes that the tenant has no right to permanent occupancy. The conditions under which a cultivating tenant can be evicted are given in Cls. (a), (aa), (b), (c) and (d) of sub S. (2) of S. 3 of the Act. Under S. 3(2)(a), the tenant can be evicted if the rent payable to the landlord is not paid within six weeks after the commencement of the Act or within a month after the rent becomes due. Cl. (aa) also provides for eviction under certain conditions, and under Cl. Under S. 3(2)(a), the tenant can be evicted if the rent payable to the landlord is not paid within six weeks after the commencement of the Act or within a month after the rent becomes due. Cl. (aa) also provides for eviction under certain conditions, and under Cl. (b) a tenant can be evicted if he does any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land or any crop thereon, or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land. Under Cl. (c), the tenant can be evicted if he used the land for any purpose not being an agricultural or horticultural purpose and under Cl. (d), he can be evicted if he willfully denied the title of the landlord to the land. These provisions cannot have any application to a tenant who has permanent occupancy right S. 4 relates to restoration of possession which is also not clearly applicable to a tenant having permanent occupancy right. S. 4-A relates to resumption of land by the landlord for personal cultivation, which provision again is not applicable to a tenant having permanent occupancy right. S. 4-B which relates to execution of lease is obviously not applicable. It is, therefore, clear that it was not the intention of the Legislature to bring within the scope of Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955 a tenant who has permanent occupancy rights. 5. Then the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1956) was enacted. The Act was enacted to ensure payment of fair rent to the cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. From the definition of the terms ‘Cultivating tenant’, ‘land owner’ and other provisions of the Act, it appears that the Act was intended to cover cultivating tenants who are cultivating land let out to them by the landowner. 6. The Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural lands) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961) was then enacted. The purpose of the enactment was to provide for regulating the administration, either by personal cultivation or by lease, of agricultural lands held by public trusts and for regulating the relation of public trusts and their cultivating tenants in the State of Tamil Nadu. The purpose of the enactment was to provide for regulating the administration, either by personal cultivation or by lease, of agricultural lands held by public trusts and for regulating the relation of public trusts and their cultivating tenants in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under S. 2(5), a ‘cultivating tenant’ means a person who contributes his own Physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, expressed or implied. This definition is the same as the amended definition of the terms ‘cultivating tenant’ by Act IX of 1969 but slightly different from the original definition in Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955 which refers it to a person who carries on personal cultivation on such land, and does not mention cultivation of any land belonging to another. The definition in Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961 requires cultivation of land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement. ‘To cultivate the land’ would mean cultivating the land with his own physical labour and would not refer to right like Melwaram. The tenancy referred to is obviously the cultivation of the Kudiwaram or the tenancy for actual possession of the land for cultivation. No doubt, there is no definition of the word ‘landlord’ in Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961 as is in Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, whereunder a ‘landlord’ in relation to a holding or part thereof means the person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part. But ‘land’ is defined as agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes, and ‘owner’ means any person holding land in severalty or jointly or in common under a ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the Government. The definition of the word ‘land’ would indicate the leasing of the agricultural land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and would include taking on lease of possessory rights for cultivation. 7. It was strongly contended on behalf of the tenants that the definition of the term ‘cultivating tenant’ and ‘owner’ is applicable to the tenants who have permanent occupancy right and to a religious trust respectively. It was further submitted that the word ‘person’ is defined as including a public trust. 7. It was strongly contended on behalf of the tenants that the definition of the term ‘cultivating tenant’ and ‘owner’ is applicable to the tenants who have permanent occupancy right and to a religious trust respectively. It was further submitted that the word ‘person’ is defined as including a public trust. The words ‘cultivating tenant’ are not wide enough to include a person who takes on lease a land from a person who has no right to kudiwaram or possession, In this connection, it may be noted that the Legislature, from the beginning, was conscious of the various tenures in the State and had specifically referred to the application of the enactments in the different tenures. Even in Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961, in defining the word ‘owner’, Cl. (ii) of sub-S. (19) of S. 2 included a landolder as defined in the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908, or a ryot as defined in that Act, and under Cl. (iii) ‘owner’ means an inamdar not being a landholder defined in the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908. The definition of the word ‘owner’ in S. 2(19)(i) namely, that the word means any person holding land in severalty or jointly or in common under a ryotwari settlement or in any way subject to the payment of revenue direct to the Government, would not contemplate a tenure whereby the tenant is entitled to permanent occupancy right, for, there is no middleman contemplated in ryotwari settlement. The other provisions of the Act would also indicate that the intention of the enactment was not to include within its fold a tenant with permanent occupancy right. S. 4 of the Act, provides that no public trust shall personally cultivate or lease out land held by such trust except in accordance with the provision of the Act. S. 5(1) provides that no public trust shall personally cultivate land in excess of 20 standard acres. S. 6 provides that any land under personal cultivation of a public trust in excess of 20 standard acres should be leased out. S. 5-A provides that the cultivating tenants ceiling area will include his spouses, minor sons or unmarried daughters holding. S. 7 provides for possession of land held by cultivating tenant to revert to the public trust in certain cases. S. 8 requires that the public trust should lease out the land recovered to it under S. 7. S. 5-A provides that the cultivating tenants ceiling area will include his spouses, minor sons or unmarried daughters holding. S. 7 provides for possession of land held by cultivating tenant to revert to the public trust in certain cases. S. 8 requires that the public trust should lease out the land recovered to it under S. 7. S. 16 provides for restriction on the extent of land to be leased out to co-operative forming society. S. 19 of the Act provides for eviction of a cultivating tenant in certain cases by the public trust. Eviction under S. 19(1)(a) can be obtained for default in payment of rent within the stipulated period, and under Cl. (b)(1), if the tenant has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of or injurious to, the land or any crop thereon. Under clause (b) (ii) eviction can be obtained if the tenant has altogether ceased to cultivate the land. Similarly, under clauses (c), (d) and (e) of S. 19(1) eviction can be obtained if the tenant has used the land for any purpose not being an agricultural purpose, or if he contravened consecutively for two crops the provisions of Sub-Sec. (1) or (2) of S. 27, or if the tenant willfully denied the title of the public trust to the land. All these grounds which would enable the public trust to evict a tenant under S. 19(1) will not be applicable to a case where the tenant is entitled to permanent occupancy right. S. 21 of the Act provides for the manner in which a lease deed is to be executed. We find that none of these provisions of the Act is applicable to a tenant who has a permanent occupancy right. 8. It was sought to be contended that the provision as to fair rent in Chapter IV is applicable not only to tenants without permanent occupancy right, but also to tenants with permanent occupancy right. We are unable to accept this contention because the provisions relating to fair rent are between the cultivating tenants and the public trust, and in the context can only mean cultivating tenants under the public trust, that is, of the kudiwaram or possessory right from the trust for purposes of cultivation. We are unable to accept this contention because the provisions relating to fair rent are between the cultivating tenants and the public trust, and in the context can only mean cultivating tenants under the public trust, that is, of the kudiwaram or possessory right from the trust for purposes of cultivation. We are satisfied that the Public Trust Act (Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961) was not intended to apply to tenants with permanent occupancy rights. 9. Now it remains for us to consider whether Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 is applicable to tenants with permanent occupancy rights. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of the Act regarding relief to the cultivating tenants from the burden of discharging arrears of rent could have been made applicable to tenants without occupancy rights as well as to tenants with permanent occupancy right. In order to find out whether the legislature intended to include tenants with permanent occupancy right, the provisions of this enactment (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972) will have to be scrutinised. The preamble indicates that the aim of the statute was to provide relief to the cultivating tenants in respect of certain arrears of rent. It is stated that the cultivating tenants have borrowed or added to their debts during the years of drought and that they are not in a position to pay arrears of rent due to their indebtedness and poor economic conditions and due to default in the payment of arrears of rent, landlords have taken action against cultivating tenants for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and that the Act was enacted to provide relief to the cultivating tenants in respect of such arrears of rents. Thus, it will be seen that the purpose of the legislation was to prevent landlords taking action against cultivating tenants for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. As already stated, the legislation was to prevent eviction by giving relief in respect of arrears of rent. But, the main purpose seems to be to prevent eviction by the landlords taking action for arrears. As already stated, the legislation was to prevent eviction by giving relief in respect of arrears of rent. But, the main purpose seems to be to prevent eviction by the landlords taking action for arrears. The words ‘cultivating tenants’ are defined in S. 2(c) of the Act a s follows: (i) a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (aa) of S. 2 of the Tenants Protection Act; or (ii) a cultivating tenant as defined In clause (5) of S. 1 of the Public Trusts Act; and includes a cultivating verumpattamdar”. It is common ground that the first clause of the definition is not applicable as the Tenants Protection Act has been repealed, and the definition of the word ‘landlord’ is not applicable since he must be a person entitled to evict. The only question is whether Cl. (ii) of the definition is applicable, that is, whether a tenant claiming permanent occupancy right is one as defined in Cl. (5) of S. 2 of the Public Trusts Act. The definition of the term ‘cultivating tenant’ in S. 2(5) of the Public Trusts A ct has already been referred to. It refers to cultivation by a tenant of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. We are inclined to agree with the contention that this was not intended to cover a case where the right to cultivate had not been leased by the landlord to the tenant. We have referred to the several provisions in Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961 and pointed out that the Act was not intended to cover a case of permanent occupancy right. The adoption of the definition in Sec. 2(5) of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act which is the same in the Act 25 of 1955 in defining the term ‘cultivating tenant’ in Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 would mean that the intention of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 is to make the Act applicable only to persons who are cultivating tenants under Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961. Apart from it, the provisions in Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 which enables the tenant to pay the current rent and obtain stay of proceedings for recovery of any arrears of rent or for the eviction of a cultivating tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent makes it clear that the Act is intended to stay proceedings in a petition for eviction of the cultivating tenant. In the event of failure of a tenant in making payment according to the provisions of S. 3 resumption of proceedings can be taken after the expiry of six months from the date of the publication of the Act from the stage which had been reached when the proceedings had been stayed as provided for under Sec. 5(2), and this would indicate that the benefit was intended to the tenants who are likely to be evicted by the proceedings. The adoption of the definition in S. 2(5) of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act and the provision for stay of proceedings for eviction in Act 21 of 1972 would establish that the Act is intended only where eviction is sought for. It would have been open to the Legislature to make it clear that the Act regarding wiping out of arrears of rent on payment of the current rent is applicable to all kinds of tenures including a tenant with permanent occupancy right. That is not only not done, but the provisions of the Act are made applicable to eviction proceedings. 10. Realising this difficulty, the learned counsel for the tenants who claimed permanent occupancy rights submitted that they are tenants under the trust and are cultivating because of a customary tenancy agreement with the trust and as such they come within the definition of the words ‘cultivating tenant’ is S. 2(5) of the Public trusts Act, and therefore, they come within the definition of the term ‘cultivating tenant’ in S. 2(c)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972. The learned counsel for the tenants would contend that they are tenants in all respects except that they have the additional right not to be evicted because of the recognised permanent occupancy right. This plea is rather incompatible, for, if a person is a tenant as understood under the Cultivating. The learned counsel for the tenants would contend that they are tenants in all respects except that they have the additional right not to be evicted because of the recognised permanent occupancy right. This plea is rather incompatible, for, if a person is a tenant as understood under the Cultivating. Tenants Protection Act, he is a person who could be evicted under certain circumstances, As already pointed out, the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or the Public Trusts Act would enable the landlord to apply for eviction under certain circumstances like non-payment of rent, act of waste, etc. and the said Acts cannot be applied to persons who claim permanent occupancy right. 11. In Srinivasa Iyengar v. Revenue Court. Tanjore 1957-2 M.L.J. 369: 78 L.W. 802 a Bench of this Court had to consider the position of occupancy rights in estates under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act after the passing of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The court held that the occupancy rights in estates are unaffected by the provisions of the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyals Protection Act (14 of 1952) and the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (25 of 1955) even though they might fall within the definition of cultivating tenants under these Acts. The court held that Tamil Nadu Acts 14 of 1952 and 25 of 1955 were enacted to restrict the grounds of eviction open in cases of tenancies unregulated by statute and this fixes the extent of operation and it would not be a proper interpretation of a statute passed in such circumstances to hold that these Acts enlarged the grounds already open to landlords to effect eviction of those who held under them. We may usefully extract the relevant paragraph at page 379 in this judgment: “The question which immediately arises for consideration is whether it could have been the intention of the Legislature to enlarge the grounds for eviction and to wipe off all those benefits which the Estates Land Act conferred on ryots and put them on the same footing as tenants of private land in an estate. Having given the matter our best consideration we are of the opinion that the later enactment did not impliedly repeal the provisions of the Estates Land Act and that occupancy ryots in estates are unaffected by the provisions of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act even though they might fall within the definition of cultivating tenants contained in it. We have reached this conclusion mainly for the reason that the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is designed to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction as stated in its preamble. As the provision as to eviction contained in Ss. 9 and 151 of the Estates Land Act confers more extensive rights on tenants than those provided by S. 3 of the later Act, we consider it not proper to hold that by reason of the enactment of Act 25 of 1955, rights already enjoyed by cultivating tenants were intended to be cut or abridged. Apart from the complication arising out of the definition of ‘cultivating tenant’ there it no indication in the later Act that it was intended to be an all-embracing and comprehensive legislation covering every species of tenants including those who were afforded larger protection under pre-existing law . In our judgment, the mischief which Act 25 of 1955 was designed to remedy determines its scope. It was enacted to restrict grounds of eviction open in case of tenancies unregulated by statute and this fixes its extent of operations. It would not be a proper interpretation of a statute passed in such circumstances to hold that it enlarged the grounds already open to landlords to effect eviction of those who held under them . If S. 3 of Act 25 of 1955 did not operate to prejudicially affect the right of ‘ryots’ in estates it Would logically follow that S. 4 of the later Act could also not be invoked by ‘ryots’ who, for instance, have been evicted from their holdings between December, 1953 and September, 1955 or have been ousted from their holdings as a result of their sale under Ch. VI of the Act notwithstanding that they might fall within the definition of ‘cultivating tenants’ (Italics ours). VI of the Act notwithstanding that they might fall within the definition of ‘cultivating tenants’ (Italics ours). Following this reasoning, we hold that the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act or the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act could be interpreted as to confer a right of eviction on the landlord on certain grounds and this was not available to him before the passing of the Act. 12. In an earlier dispute between the tenants of the same temple and the temple in T.P. Ramachandra Muthiriyar v. Sri Harasabhavimochanaperumal temple S.A. 398 of 1970, V. Ramaswami, J. held that Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955 is neither applicable to the tenants nor to the temple, and therefore, the tenants are not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972. The learned Judge, relying on the decision of the Bench, referred to above, held that the temple is not a landlord within the meaning of the definition of that word under S. 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, and as the tenant is not liable to be evicted by reason of the peculiar tenancy, Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955 is not applicable. So far as this view is concerned, it is not disputed. But, the plea that is raised in the petitions is that Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961 is applicable to the tenants, and therefore, Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 is also applicable. This aspect was net considered by the learned Judge. 13. On behalf of the tenants, reliance is placed on the decision of Ramamurti, J. in Mangalathachi v. Kandiyar Sri Harasabha Vimochanaperumal Koil S.A. 264 of 1966, which was also a dispute between the tenants and the same temple. The learned Judge in dealing with the question of payment of fair rent to the tenants held that the definition of the word ‘tenant’ in Tamil Nadu Act (24 of 1956 and Tamil Nadu Act 57 of 1961 is wide and general, and is not limited to tenancy agreements of any particular character. According to the learned Judge the tenancy agreement may rest on custom, and so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists and so long as the ten ant satisfies that he is cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act, he will be entitled to the protection of the Act. According to the learned Judge the tenancy agreement may rest on custom, and so long as the relationship of landlord and tenant exists and so long as the ten ant satisfies that he is cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act, he will be entitled to the protection of the Act. The learned Judge purporting to follow the Bench decision in Srinivasa Iyengar v. Revenue Court, Tanjore 1957-2-M.L.J. 369: 70 L.W. 802, held that the tenants who had permanent occupancy rights under the temple were also cultivating tenants. We are not concerned here with the Application of she Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 24 of 1956. But, we are unable to agree with the view of the learned Judge that the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act is applicable to the tenants who claim permanent occupancy right. 14. Learned Counsel for the tenants relied on the decision of Raghavan, J., in Sri Brimhasira Kandeswaraswami Devastanam v. Md. Sheriff S.A. 497 and 1034 of 1968 wherein the tenants claimed similar permanent occupancy right. The learned Judge held that, after the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act came into force, it is not open to a public trust to claim anything in excess of the fair rent that is provided in S. 24(1) of the Act. We are not dealing with this question in these petitions. But for the reasons stated already, we are satisfied that the Tamilnadu Public Trusts Act is not applicable to a tenant claiming permanent occupancy right. 15. In the result, we hold that the tenants who are entitled to permanent occupancy right cannot avail themselves of the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972. The civil revision petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in any of these petitions. 16. At out request, Mr. K. Parasaran, Advocate, assisted us as amicus curiae, and we are thankful to him for the able assistance rendered by him.