- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandy Cheriyan v. Venkiteswara Iyer Harihara Iyer
Factual and Procedural Background
This civil revision petition was filed by the 1st defendant in a pending eviction suit. The plaintiff described the 1st defendant as a care-taker; the defendant claimed to be a cultivating tenant entitled to immunity from eviction. After the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, XII of 1966, came into force, the defendant moved for a stay of the suit under section 8 on the ground that a record of rights had not been prepared in respect of the property. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, dismissed that motion. The defendant challenged that dismissal by way of this civil revision petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 8 of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, XII of 1966, requires the court to stay a suit for eviction until the record of rights in respect of the holding is prepared and made available.
- Whether the applicability of section 8 depends on the form of the plaint (i.e., an admission that the defendant is a cultivating tenant) or on the controversy arising from pleadings regarding the defendant's status.
- Whether the record of rights prepared under section 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, is admissible and relevant evidence for determining the status of a person as a cultivating tenant.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (1st defendant's) Arguments
- The record of rights is a relevant piece of evidence (though not conclusive) in determining whether the defendant is a cultivating tenant.
- Section 8 of the 1966 Act commands a stay of the suit until the record of rights is prepared and made available.
- Section 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, directs preparation of a record of rights in respect of a holding and makes that record admissible in evidence; its contents show tenancy rights and thus are evidence of landlord–tenant relationship.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- Section 8 is attracted only to a "suit or other proceeding for the eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding"; therefore, unless the plaint is framed as for eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding (i.e., admits the defendant is a cultivating tenant), section 8 does not apply.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| gurbax singh v. State of punjab - air. 1967 s. C. 502 | The purpose of the enactment must be borne in mind when construing statutory provisions. | Relied on to reject a narrow construction of s. 8 that would render the provision purposeless; court adopted a purposive approach. |
| avtar singh v. State of punjab air. 1965 s. C. 666 | Words of an act must be construed so as to give a sensible meaning to them. | Invoked to support construing s. 8 sensibly so as to allow the record of rights to be summoned when the defendant's status as cultivating tenant is in controversy, despite the form of the plaint. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined section 29 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, noting that the revenue divisional officer prepares a record of rights in respect of a holding on application and after enquiry; the record, if prepared, is admissible in evidence (sub‑s. (6)) and must show tenancy rights (sub‑s. (4)). The court interpreted a "record of rights" as relating to a holding and as evidence of landlord–tenant relationship.
The court then analyzed section 8 of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, XII of 1966, which enjoins the court not to proceed with a suit for eviction of a cultivating tenant "until the record of rights in respect of the holding is prepared and made available to it." The purpose of producing the record is to assist the court in adjudicating the defendant's status as a cultivating tenant by providing relevant evidence; the court may nevertheless reach a conclusion different from the revenue officer's entry, but the record guides the enquiry and burden of proof.
The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that s. 8 applies only where the plaint expressly admits the defendant's status as a cultivating tenant, observing that such a narrow reading would render s. 8 purposeless. Relying on cited Supreme Court authorities, the court held that the applicability of s. 8 depends on the controversy arising from the pleadings about the defendant's status, not merely on the form of the plaint.
Accordingly, the court found the Additional Subordinate Judge's dismissal of the stay application—solely because the plaintiff had not admitted the defendant's status—to be unwarranted.
Holding and Implications
Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; the subordinate judge is directed to stay the suit and to direct the revenue divisional officer to prepare, within a specified time, the record of rights in regard to the suit properties if he finds them to be a holding, and to file the same in court if prepared.
Direct consequences: the trial is to be stayed and the record of rights obtained and placed on the court file; the civil revision petition was allowed with costs. The opinion does not purport to establish a novel precedent beyond these directions.
1. This civil revision petition is by the 1st defendant in a suit for eviction. Plaintiff describes him as a care - taker, But he claims to be a cultivating tenant entitled to immunity from eviction. The suit is pending disposal in the original court. When the kerala prevention of eviction act, Xii of 1966, Hereinafter the act came into force, He moved for a stay of the suit under s. 8 thereof on the ground that a record of rights has not been prepared in respect of the property. The additional subordinate judge, Kottayam, Dismissed that motion.
2. In the nature of the pleadings a material issue in the suit is the status of the 1st defendant whether he is a tenant or only a care - taker of the suit properties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the determination of that issue the record of rights is a relevant piece of evidence, Though not conclusive; and that s. 8 of the act commands a stay of trial of the issue till that evidence becomes available. S. 29 of the kerala land reforms act, I of 1964, Which came into force on april 1, 1964, Directs preparation by the revenue divisional officer of a record of rights in respect of a holding on application by the tenant and after an enquiry with the landlord and all other persons interested. It is obvious from that section that a record of rights relates to a holding, And if a particular land is not found to be a holding by the revenue divisional officer there will be no record of rights in regard to it. Sub - s. (6) of the section says that the record of rights prepared under the section shall be admissible in evidence before any court. Evidence of what? must certainly be of its contents. Sub - section (4) enjoins that its contents must show that in such and such a land belonging to such and such an owner, Such and such persons have tenancy rights. The record of rights will then be an evidence of landlord - tenant relationship. S. 8 of the act xii of 1966 enjoins the court not to proceed with a suit for eviction of a cultivating tenant "until the record of rights in respect of the holding is prepared and made available to it. " it is clear that the purpose of production of the record of rights is to help the court in the adjudication of the status of a person as a cultivating tenant by providing an item of evidence thereon. It may be that in the light of other evidence adduced by the parties the court may reach a conclusion different from that made by the revenue divisional officer in the record of rights; but the record of rights can provide a basis for the court's enquiry and a guide to the burden of proof on the issue.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that s. 8 of the act is attracted only to a "suit or other proceeding for the eviction of a cultivating tenant. From his holding", And that, Therefore, Unless the suit is laid as for eviction of a cultivating tenant from his holding the section would have no application. In other words, Unless the plaint makes an admission that the defendant, Who is sought to be evicted, Is a cultivating tenant, S. 8 of the act has no relevance. I am afraid, If that interpretation be accepted s. 8 of the act will be devoid of any purpose, And the production of the record of rights will be of no use to the court. As cautioned by the supreme court the purpose of the enactment has to be borne in mind in construing the provisions of an act (gurbax singh v. State of punjab - air. 1967 s. C. 502) and the words of an act must be construed so as to give a sensible meaning to them (avtar singh v. State of punjab air. 1965 s. C. 666). It would not then be reasonable to hold that merely because the plaint in a suit for eviction of a tenant is framed as for eviction of a trespasser or a care - taker or a licensee, The section must be excluded. The nature of the suit, In the context of s. 8 of the act xii of 1966, Depends not on the averments in the plaint, But on the controversy arising out of pleadings as to the status of the defendant concerned. It is in the determination of the status of the defendant who claims to be a cultivating tenant, And only in the determination of that issue, That the record of rights can be a relevant piece of evidence.
4. The dismissal of the prayer for a stay of the instant suit under s. 8 of the act xii of 1966 on the sole ground that the status of the defendant as a cultivating tenant is not admitted. By the plaintiff is unwarranted and incorrect. The order impugned is therefore set aside, And the subordinate judge is directed to stay the suit and issue the necessary direction to the revenue divisional officer concerned to
prepare within a specified time the record of rights in regard to the suit properties if be finds them to be a holding and to file the same if prepared in court as enjoined in s. 8 of the act xii of 1966.
5. This civil revision petition is thus allowed, With costs. Allowed.
Alert