Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2027 OF2014to 2039 of 2014 and C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2041 to 2047 of 2014 and C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2338 to 2352 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2014 1.Devikarani 2.G.Seenivasan 3.G.Pitchaimani 4.Sindhuja ..Petitioners in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2027 of 2014 Vs 1.A.Illayaraja 2.P.Kalyaniammal 3.Unnikrishnan 4.Manikandan 5.K.Manikandan 6.Rajendran ..Respondents in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2027 of 2014 Prayer in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2027 of 2014: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to set aside the order dated 26.02.2014 passed in I.A.No.27 of 2014 in T.C.T.P.No.31 of 1997 on the file of the Revenue Court, Madurai.
!For Petitioners :M/s.D.Nallathambi in C.R.P(PD)(Md.No.2027 of 2014 ^For Respondents :M/s.D.Rajkumar in C.R.P(PD)(Md.No.2027 of 2014 :COMMON ORDER
The heirs of the original owner one R.M.Govindarajan (since deceased) and one Pushpavalli, Landlady are the Petitioners in all the above revisions.
2.Heirs of the said R.M.Govindarajan and Pushpavalli have filed T.C.T.P under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act for evicting the respondents-original lessees who were cultivating the lands.
As they had defaulted in payment of the rent as agreed, the Eviction Petitions were filed.
Pending Eviction Petitions, one Illayaraja and Mayilvahanan filed interlocutory applications for impleading themselves in the Eviction Proceedings.
The said impleading Petitions were allowed.
Aggrieved by the same, all the above Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
3.For better appreciation of the case, following facts will be necessary: The lands belong to one R.M.Govindarajan and S.Pushpavalli is another owner of the land mentioned in the Petition.
The lands were leased out to one Paraman Nayar and his brother Krishnan Nayar and they had been cultivating the lands.
While so, by deed called( cHtil)Made Over Deed dated 05.02.1996, the original lesssees Paraman Nayar and Krishnan Nayar had made over their leasehold rights in favour of one Agni Ambalam.
The terms of the Ulavadai Pathiram are as follows: ?.MfBt njdoapy; brhj;J tpguj;jpy; fz;l eq;ir epyA;fspy; vA;fSf;Fs;s cHtil ghj;jpaj;ij ehA;fs; jA;fSf;F ne;j cHtil BkBlhgh; gj;jpuk; up$p!;jh; bra;J bfhLj;J.ehsJ Bjjp Kjy; njdoapy; brhj;J tpguj;jpy; fz;;l eq;ir epyA;fspy; vA;fSf;Fs;s cHtil bghrprid ehA;fs; jA;fs; trk; xg;gilj;J tpl;Blhk;.
njw;F gpujp gpuBahrdkhf, ehA;fs; jA;fsplkpUe;Jmoapy; ifbahg;gkpl;Ls;s rhl;rpfspd; Kd;ghf Behpy; :Ugha; 20,00,000/-(Ugha; nUgjhapuk;) kl;Lk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;Bshk;.
VdBt ehsJ Bjjp eq;irfSf;F ne;j brhj;jpd; mry; Rthd;jhuhd Bkw;go Mh;.vk;.
Bfhtpe;juh$d; mth;fS;fFk; njdoapy; brhj;J tpguj;jpy; fz;l 8tJ9J nyf;f eq;irfSf;F ne;j brhj;jpd; mty; Rthd;jhuuhd Bkw;go v!;.g[&;gts;sp mth;fSf;Fk; KiwBa Vf;'fh; 1(xd;Wf;F54gofs; bfhz;l bey; Kilfs; 8(vl;L) tPjk; brYj;jp bjhlh;e;J Bkw;go mry; Rthd;jhuhh;fspd; cHtiljhuuhf nUe;J tUtPh;fshft[k;.?.' 4.The said Agni Ambalam to whom the original lessees have made over their leasehold rights died and his heirs namely one Illayaraja and Mayilvahanan are now in possession of the lands.
According to them, they have been cultivating the lands after the demise of Agni Ambalam.
They want to implead themselves in the Eviction Proceedings.
Accordingly, the interlocutory applications were filed seeking an order of impleadment of the heirs of Agni Ambalam who got the leasehold rights made over in his favour as parties to the Eviction Petitions.
As the said impleading Petitions were allowed, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the heirs of the original owner deceased Govindarajan challenging the impleadment.
5.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the original lessees have got no right to sell the leasehold rights as they are recorded as cultivating tenants under the Record of Tenancy Act.
No doubt, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act permits the tenant to sublet the property.
However, in this case, tenancy rights have been made over and sold to the proposed parties which act is not recognized by law.
Therefore it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that they are not necessary party to the proceedings and they should not be impleaded.
It is pertinent to quote at this point the definition of Cultivating Tenant which falls under Section 2(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act: ?.2.Definitions:.....(aa).Cultivating tenant?.-- (i)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, expRs.or implied; and (II)includes-- (a)any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement; (b)the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (c).sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (d).sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; but....?.
6.According to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the cultivating tenant may include any person who had any semblance of right during the tenancy agreement or in favour of the original lessee or even any sub-tenant who contributed his own physical labour in the interest of the land.
However, the person like proposed parties who seeks to implead themselves based on the Made Over Deed cannot be termed as Cultivating Tenant.
Therefore it was contended that the impleadment of such parties are vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision reported in 2010-1-LW541(Balu Pillai and others .versus Mahadevan and others)which reads as follows: ?.24.As the special Acts referred to above do not contemplate the right of transfer of the leasehold rights in favour of third parties, it is held that the recorded cultivating tenant has no right to alienate the leasehold right to a third party though he has got a right under the Act to sub-let the properties to a third party.
Ignoring the exclusive right of the landlord, the recorded cultivating tenant cannot simply sell away his leasehold rights in favour of a third party.
Retaining his leasehold right, he can sub-let the premises to a third party.
25.Factually it is found that the fiRs.and second defendants, who were not cultivating tenants inasmuch as they had not tilled the lands physically, have no right to transfer the leasehold right in favour of the fifth defendant.
Inasmuch as fiRs.and second defendants did not have any right to transfer the leasehold rights as they were not cultivating tenants, the fifth defendant also does not derive any leasehold right from the fiRs.and second defendants.
The law also, as stated above, does not permit the wholesale alienation of the leasehold right by a recorded cultivating tenant in favour of a third party behind the back of the landlord.
The seventh defendant also has failed to establish satisfactorily that he became a sub-tenant under the legal heirs of Karuthan.
The factual decision rendered by the Courts below with respect thereto cannot be upset by this Court in the absence of cogent reason putforth before this Court for interference.?.
7.Be that as it may, now it has to be seen whether the impleadment is right or wrong.
Admittedly, the original lessees who had taken the land as lessees are dead.
Even during their lifetime, they had made over the leasehold rights in favour of the proposed parties and it is the proposed parties who are cultivating the soil.
It is also complained by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the proposed parties who claim to be cultivating the lands have not paid the rent as agreed by them in the Made Over Agreement which was executed without his knowledge.
Therefore the Special Sub-Collector(Revenue Court) had held that it will be in the interest of justice the proposed parties may be impleaded as any order passed in the Eviction Petitions will bind on them.
The Revenue Court also held that the proposed parties have been cultivating the land.
It is also curious to know that the heirs of the original lessees namely Paraman Nayar and Krishnan Nayar endorsed 'No Objection' for impleading the proposed parties to the Eviction Proceedings, whereas, heirs of the original landlords/owners have objected for the same.
The Revenue Court has allowed the applications only on the ground that the proposed parties are in possession of the properties and any order that may be passed in the Execution Proceedings is binding on them, if they are made as parties to the proceedings.
Admittedly, the proposed parties have purchased only the leasehold rights from the original lessees and cultivating the lands.
It is also admitted by the heirs of the original lessees that they are not in possession of the property.
In such circumstances, any order that may be passed by the Revenue Court would become valueless if the persons in occupation are not made parties.
Though the transfer of leasehold rights are done without the knowledge and consent of the land owner, the transferees are bound to pay the rent as agreed in the original lease as well as in the madeover deed.
What was transferred under the madeover deed is only leasehold rights.
Therefore any order of eviction that may be passed by the Revenue Court will be binding on them.
8.The Revenue Court exercising authority under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act can be held to be a Court of limited jurisdiction.
The Revenue Court is vested with the power and jurisdiction to decide the question relating to the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the status, as to the terms on which the person holds the tenancy and other similar questions.
The Revenue Court is competent to decide these issues.
9.It is also relevant to point out here that any decision of the Revenue Court decided within its competence will operate as res-judicata.
Therefore to avoid any such technical difficulty also the impleadment has to be allowed.
10.Therefore I see no material irregularity in the above said order as any order passed in the Eviction Petitions will certainly be binding on the proposed parties.
It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the tenancy rights was filed by the land owneRs.The proposed party namely Illayaraja was the fiRs.defendant in O.S.No.173 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai which was dismissed on 22.04.2010 and on appeal in A.S.No.144 of 2010, the same was allowed and the suit was decreed.
It is stated by the respondents that a Second Appeal was filed against the same and the same is pending.
In view of the above proceedings also, the order of the Revenue Court suffers from no irregularity and the same has to be confirmed.
11.In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Since the T.C.T.Ps are of the year 1997 and the land owners have been deprived of the income that they should get from the land because of the proceedings and the transfers that has been made behind their back, the Revenue Court, Madurai is directed to dispose of all the Eviction Petitions within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
No costs.
21.01.2015 Index : yes/No Internet:Yes/No versus To The Revenue Court, Madurai.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J versus C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2027 to 2039 of 2014 and C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2041 to 2047 of 2014 and C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2338 to 2352 of 2014 21.01.2015