Madras High Court
G.Devikarani vs Paraman Nair (Died)
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on Pronounced on
05.08.2025 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P. (MD) NOS. 112 TO 122 & 124 TO 133 OF 2022
AND
S.A. NOS. 831 & 832 OF 2014
R.M.Govindarajan (Died)
1. G.Devikarani
2. G.Srinivasan
3. G.Pitchimani
4. G.Sindhuja .. Petitioners in all petitions
- Vs -
Paraman Nair (Died)
Krishnan Nair (Died)
1. Kalyani Ammal
2. P.Unnikrishnan (Died)
3. P.Manikandan
4. K.Manikandan
5. K.Rajendran (Died)
6. A.Ilayaraja
1/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
7. R.Shoba
8. R.Revathi
9. R.Renuka Devi
10. U.Rama
11. U.Mukesh
12. U.Makesh .. Respondents in all petitions
(RR-7 to 9 brought on record as LRs
of deceased 5th respondent & RR-10
to 12 are brought on record as LRs of
deceased 2nd respondent vide order
dated 25.06.25 in CMP (MD) Nos.
11856/2022, etc.)
1. A.Ilayaraja
2. P.Kalyani Ammal
3. K.Manikandan .. Appellants in SA
831/2014
- Vs -
1. Devikarani
2. G.Srinivasan
3. G.Pitchaimani
4. G.Zinduza .. Respondents in SA
831/2014
1. A.Ilayaraja
2. P.Kalyani Ammal
3. K.Manikandan .. Appellants in SA
832/2014
2/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
- Vs –
S.Puspavalli .. Respondent in SA
832/2014
C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 112 to 122 & 124 to 133 of 2022 filed under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying this Court to set aside the order
dated 3.4.2017 made in T.C.T.P. Nos.70/1999, 31/1997, 12/1996, 38/1994,
39/1994, 39A/1994, 28/2001, 17/2004, 11/2005, 14/2006, 10/2007, 13/1989,
177/1991, 7/2011, 24/2009, 33/2010, 11/2013, 6/2014, 11/2012, 5/2016 and
12/2016 on the file of the Revenue Court, Madurai and allow these revision
petitions.
S.A. Nos.831 & 832 of 2014 filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2011
made in A.S. Nos.144 and 145 of 2010 on the file of the II Addl. Sub Judge,
Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2010 made in O.S.
Nos.172 & 173/2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai
and allow these second appeals.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Thiagarajan
3/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
For Appellants : Mr. Anthony Arul Raj in SA No.
832/2014
Mr. R.Anand in SA No.831/2014
For Respondents : Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai for
M/s.Ajmal Associates for R-6 in
all revision petitions
Mr.P.Thiagarajan in both SAs
No Appearance for RR-1 to 5 & 7
to 12 in all revision petitions
COMMON JUDGMENT
The innocent landlord, caught between the tenant/lessee on the lease and
the sub-tenant, who is a sub-lessee of the tenant under a registered sub-lease,
fighting the case through the various courts for more than three decades, is now
before this Court through the present revision petitions, now being prosecuted
by their legal representatives, has assailed the order passed by the Revenue
Court in and by which the petitions filed for eviction of the cultivating tenant
and for realising the dues payable towards the lease amounts have been
dismissed on the ground that the amounts due towards the lease amounts have
been paid and, therefore, there arises no question for eviction of the cultivating
tenant.
4/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
2. As both the civil revision petitions and the second appeal are
strikingly connected through the very same set of facts and the disposal of the
revisions would have a direct impact on the second appeal and vice versa, the
civil revision petitions and the second appeals are taken up together for
disposal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioners and their
predecessors-in-title would be referred to as ‘landlord’, the predecessors-in-
interest of the tenant/lessee would be referred to as ‘tenant’ and the
predecessors-in-interest of the sub-tenant/sub-lessee would be referred to as
‘sub-tenant’.
4. While the revision petitions have been filed by the landlord assailing
the order passed by the authority denying the prayer of eviction sought for by
the landlord ever since default occurred in payment of lease rent, the sub-tenant
has filed the second appeals, which arose out of the suit in O.S. Nos.172 &
173/2001 filed by the landlord before the District Munsif Court, Madurai, for a
permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant, viz., the sub-tenant, his
agents and servants from entering the lands of the landlord and also for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5, viz., the tenants,
their men, agents and servants from transferring the tenancy of the suhedule
5/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
lands to the 3rd defendant or any other person, which suit, on being dismissed,
resulted in filing of A.S. No.143 & 144/2010 before the II Addl. Sub Judge,
Madurai, which, having been allowed, has prompted the sub-tenant in
preferring the second appeals.
5. As the findings that are to be recorded in the civil revision petitions
would have to be read in conjunction to determine the fate of the second
appeals, therefore, the facts, culminating in the filing of the civil revisions
petitions are given in a nutshell hereunder for better appreciation of the case.
6. The eviction petitions through the various petitions before the
Revenue Court, which are the subject matter of the present revisions, came to
be filed before the Revenue Court by the landlord on the ground that the lands
belonging to Ramaswamy Chettiar, the predecessors-in-title of the revision
petitioners/landlord, was given by way of an unregistered lease in the year 1971
to one Kumar Nair, the predecessor-in-interest of Paraman Nair and Krishnan
Nair, the tenants, who are since deceased, and who are represented by their
legal heirs, who are respondents in these revision petitions. By the said lease, it
was agreed between the landlord and the tenant that the tenant would be
permitted to cultivate the lands upon paying 60 bags of paddy and each bag
containing 65 Kgs., for each fasli year irrespective of the yield and also obtain
6/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
receipt for the payment of such paddy towards the lease amount from the
landlord. It was further agreed upon that the tenant would not assign the
leasehold rights to others or transfer or made over or sub-lease or under lease
the lands to others and that he shall cultivate only paddy crops and no other
crops in the said lands without the written consent of the landlord.
7. It is the further case of the landlord that during the life time of the said
Kumar Nair, the original lessee, he paid the paddy towards the lease amount
regularly and obtained receipt from the landlord and after the demise of the said
Kumar Nair, the very same lease on the very same terms was continued by the
legal heirs of Ramaswamy Chettiar by way of an oral agreement with the eldest
son of Kumar Nair, viz., Paraman Nair, since deceased, who has been
cultivating the lands on the very same terms and conditions, but has not been
paying the lease amount of paddy to the landlord from Fasli 1395 to 1410 for a
total period of 16 years, totalling to 960 bags totally, working to a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/-.
8. It is the further case of the landlord that the tenants not only defaulted
in paying the arrears of lease amount in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of
960 bags of paddy, over a period of 16 years, but also colluded with others and
inducted sub-tenants by creating a sub-lease, which was registered. Therefore,
7/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
for non-payment of amount in violation of the lease agreement, the landlord
initiated eviction proceedings in which eviction order was passed against the
tenants in TCTP No.39/1994 and TCTP No.12/96 relating to the fasli year 1401
to 1403 and 1404 to 1405. Thereafter, I.A. No.550 and 551/01 was also filed to
evict the tenants from the suit lands and to thwart the process of eviction, the
tenants colluded with others and created sub-lease over the said lands. When
the interim applications were taken up before the Revenue Court, the sub-
tenants served a copy of the petitions alleging that the tenants had executed a
registered made over deed in relation to their lands in favour of one Akkini
Ambalam and after the death of the said Akkini Ambalam, the right of
cultivation over the said lands devolved on his sons, who are the sub-tenants by
virtue of the made over deed and sought for impleadment, which was ordered.
It is the averment of the landlord that the tenants had no right to enter into a
registered made over deed to assign the leased land by creating a sub-lease,
which is in violation of the oral lease between the landlord and the tenants. It is
the further averment of the landlord that even after the alleged made over deed,
the sub-tenants did not pay the agreed lease amounts. Since there was arrears
of the lease amount due from the tenants, the landlord had moved the Revenue
Court every year seeking eviction of the tenants.
9. It is the further averment of the landlord that upon order of eviction
8/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
being passed in TCTP No.39/1994 and TCTP No.12/96 relating to the fasli year
1401 to 1403 and 1404 to 1405 and I.A. No.550 and 551/01 were filed to evict
the tenants, impleadment of the sub-tenants was sought for, which was ordered.
Till such time, the tenants did not pay the lease amount nor the sub-tenants, on
the basis of the alleged sub-lease paid the lease amounts either directly or
indirectly and the payment made during the eviction proceedings is nothing but
an attempt to deny the legitimate rights of the landlord to evict the tenants/sub-
tenants.
10. It is the further averment of the landlord that petitions were filed by
the landlord before the Revenue Court seeking eviction of the tenants right
from the year 1994 for non-payment of lease amount. However, till eviction
order was passed in TCTP No.39/94 and 12/96, the entering into sub-lease by
the tenants was not revealed to the landlord inspite of the fact that orders for
eviction was passed in the aforesaid matters and only during the second stage of
eviction proceedings in I.A. No.550 and 55/01, the sub-tenants filed the petition
for impleadment on the ground that a made over deed was entered into in the
year 1996 between the tenants and one Akkini Ambalam, the father of the
present sub-tenants, who are the legal heirs of the said Akkini Ambalam.
11. It is the further averment of the landlord that as against the aforesaid
9/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
impleadment, the landlord filed CRP (PD) (MD) Nos.2027 to 2039 of 2014 and
this Court dismissed the aforesaid petitions vide order dated 21.01.2015 holding
that any order passed in the eviction petitions would be binding on the
impleaded parties as well. It is the further averment of the landlord that this
Court, in the aforesaid revisions, further held that the petitions for eviction has
been pending from the year 1997 and that the land owners have been deprived
of income which they would have otherwise got from the land and, therefore,
the Revenue Court, Madurai, was directed to dispose of all the eviction
petitions within a particular time frame.
12. It is the further averment of the landlord that inspite of the aforesaid
directions, the sub-tenant did not pay any amount and, therefore, the landlords
were constrained to file CRP (MD) No.1130 and 1131 of 2016 and this Court,
vide order dated 13.07.2016 in the miscellaneous petitions in CMP (MD) Nos.
5639 and 5640/2016 directed the sub-tenants to pay the dues on or before
1.8.2016. However, even thereafter, the entire amount was not paid and only a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid and further time was granted to pay the balance
amount of Rs.4,21,784/- and once again on 20.10.2016, further time was sought
for by the sub-tenant to pay the said amount and time was extended till
15.11.2016 and the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2016 on which date, as
compliance was reported by the sub-tenant, this court closed the revision
10/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
petitions without looking into the larger relief of eviction sought for by the
landlord, which issue was deliberated in the first order dated 2.9.2016 in which
direction was issued to the sub-tenant to pay the lease amount.
13. It is the further averment of the landlord that in the year 2001, when
the landlord went to see their property on 1.8.2001, they came to know about
the made over deed which led the landlord to file the suit in O.S. Nos.172 and
173/2001 seeking permanent injunction against the two sons of Akkini
Ambalam, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai as also against the
tenants, viz., defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 from transferring the tenancy rights and
the said suits were dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2010 and aggrieved by the
said dismissal, the landlord preferred A.S. No.144 and 145/2010 before the II
Addl. Sub Judge, Madurai and the said appeals were allowed granting the relief
of permanent injunction and the sub-tenant had filed second appeals in S.A.
Nos.831 and 832/2014 before this Court, which is pending.
14. It is the further averment of the landlord that pending the above
second appeal and without properly appreciating the provisions of law, the
Revenue Court, vide its order dated 10.12.2015, recognized the sub-tenant as a
cultivating tenant and dismissed and ordered the registration of the name of the
sub-tenants as cultivating tenants, which has been approved in the appeal in
11/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
A.P. No.15/2016 filed by the landlord and the revision petition against the said
orders before the Revenue Divisional Officer was also confirmed in favour of
the sub-tenant.
15. It is the further averment of the landlord that on the basis of the order
passed in CRP (MD) Nos.1130 and 1131/2016 closing the revisions and also
based on the order passed recognizing the sub-tenant as the cultivating tenant,
without adverting to the provisions of law the Revenue Court dismissed the
eviction petitions filed by the landlord based on the payment of the lease
amount due to the landlord and also on the basis of the entries made by the
Tahsildar registering the tenancy rights of the sub-tenant in the lease register.
16. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting the eviction, the present civil
revision petitions have been filed by the landlord, while the second appeals
have been filed by the sub-tenant questioning the grant of permanent injunction
in favour of the landlord, which runs counter to the order passed by the
Revenue Court, which is based on the order passed in the revision petitions by
this Court.
Submissions on behalf of the landlords in the revision petitions :
12/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
17. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord, at the outset, attacked
the impugned order by submitting that the findings of the Revenue Court that
the sub-tenant’s position as a cultivating tenant has been accepted by the High
Court, which had ordered payment of the lease amounts, which are due, is
grossly perverse and unreasonable, as even at the very first instance, when CRP
(MD) Nos.1130 and 1131 of 2016 came to be filed, this Court had clearly
observed that the tenants are not entitled for any sympathy or concession.
Therefore, the only reason that prevailed upon this Court to keep the revisions
open before passing any direction was to enable the landlords to realise the
lease amounts that were due and receivable by them. However, the closure of
the revision petitions have been wrongly inferred to be a stamp of cultivating
tenant given on the sub-tenant by this Court by the Revenue Court is per se
unreasonable and unsustainable.
18. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the direction
of this Court to the sub-tenants to deposit the lease arrears, is as an interim
measure, which was aimed at safeguarding the interest of the landlords and
non-compliance of the directions to deposit by the sub-tenant would amount to
the eviction being automatic and only in that view of the matter, the sub-tenant
had dragged the payment for more than four months and paid the amounts,
which were due over a period of 16 years, which clearly shows that act of not
13/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
only the tenant, but also the sub-tenant, who is alleged to be cultivating the
lands under an alleged registered made over deed.
19. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the order
passed by this Court on 21.01.2015 in CRP (MD) No.2027 to 2039 of 2014
does not amount to accepting the status of the sub-tenant as a cultivating tenant,
but only to give an opportunity to the sub-tenant to establish his status as a
cultivating tenant, which resulted in allowing the impleadment by the Revenue
Court to stand and it does not confer the status of cultivating tenant on the sub-
tenant. However, the Revenue Court has erroneously inferred the directions
given both in CRP (MD) No.2027 to 2039/2014 and in CRP (MD) No.1130 and
1131/2016.
20. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in CRP (MD)
Nos.1130 and 1131/2016, specific plea of the landlords was only for seeking
the relief of payment of the lease arrears and for eviction of the sub-tenant on
the ground that there was no valid agreement for the sub-tenant to hold the
lands as a cultivating tenant. But this Court, while recording that the sub-tenant
is not entitled for any sympathy, only as a measure of safety to the landlords,
directed payment of the lease amount.
14/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
21. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even the
original lease deed dated 22.5.1968 clearly specifies that the lease amount is 12
bags of paddy per acre and in respect of the total extent of 5.15 acres, the total
lease amount works to 60 bags of paddy. The fixation of 8 bags of paddy per
acre by this Court to deposit of amount for 8 bags of paddy per acre is only as
an interim measure and it is not towards the entire lease arrears.
22. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the payment of
lease amount by the sub-tenant would not automatically clothe him with the
status of a cultivating tenant, as at best, the payment made by the sub-tenant is
only on behalf of the tenant, but the Revenue Court has erroneously inferred
that this Court has accepted the status of the sub-tenant as cultivating tenant and
accorded the status of cultivating tenant including registration in the register by
the authority, which is wholly unreasonable and misconceived.
23. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the leasehold
rights cannot be transferred by the lessees in favour of any third parties so as to
claim the benefits of protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants
Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) as no provision permits such transferee
lessees to protection under the Act. It is further submitted that it is only the
cultivating tenants and sub tenants, who are contributing their own physical
15/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
labour are having the protection from the unlawful evictions. In the present
case, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the leasehold rights having
sought to be transferred by the registered made over deed, which is not
envisaged under the Act, the said registered deed cannot form the basis to
recognize the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants in the place of the original
tenants and only on that ground, this Court, in the earlier round of revision
petitions, did not grant the benefit of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenants.
However, the said fact has not been properly appreciated by the Revenue Court
while conferring the status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenant based on the
order of this Court and, therefore, the said finding being perverse and illegal,
the same requires to be interfered with.
24. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the adangal
receipt till the year 2000 is with the landlord and only after the year 2000, the
adangal receipt had been transferred in the name of the sub-tenant on the basis
of the registered deed and on the basis of the decree in the suit filed by the
landlord seeking permanent injunction. It is the submission of the learned
counsel that when the transfer of the lease in favour of the sub-tenant is grossly
erroneous and is not covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating
Tenants Protection Act and this Court having not granted the status of
cultivating tenant to the sub-tenant, erroneous inference of the order of this
16/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
Court by the authority has resulted in the passing of the impugned order, which
requires to be interfered with.
25. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in Balu Pillai @ Balasubramanian Pillai
& Ors. – Vs – Mahadevan & Ors. (2010 (1) LW 541), wherein this Court has
held that recorded cultivating tenant has no right to alienate the leasehold right
to any third party though he has got a right under the Act to sublet the properties
to third party. When the wholesale alienation is impermissible, the present
alienation deserves to be set aside, as it is squarely covered by the aforesaid
decision, which ration has also been followed by the Division Bench of this
court in S.Kulanthai (Decd.) & Anr. – Vs – Mrs. Ragina Jeyapaul & Ors.
(2024 (Supreme (Mad 2014 :: 2014 MHC 4057 – WA (MD) Nos.1408/2023).
Submissions on behalf of the sub-tenants in the revision petitions :
26. Learned counsel appearing for the sub-tenants submitted that the
tenancy rights, which were with the tenants, as cultivating tenants under the
landlord was transferred to the father of the sub-tenants, viz., Akkini Ambalam
17/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
by means of a made over deed dated 5.2.1996 upon payment of a sum of Rs.
20,000/- as one time premium and notice of such transfer was also informed to
the landlord. The landlord had not objected to such transfer at any point of
time.
27. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the sub-
tenants made an application to record them as cultivating tenants under the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act in which the
landlord raised objections with regard to the legality of the made-over
document and the Record Officer, by a detailed order dated 10.12.2015, held
that the sub-tenant is a cultivating tenant and recorded their name in the
register. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated
21.2.2017 and the revision filed against the said order also received the same
fate, thus confirming the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants.
28. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
jurisdiction to decide the legal relationship between the landlord and sub-tenant
as that of landlord and cultivating tenant is only with the authority designated
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy
Rights Act and such authority having declared the status of the sub-tenant as a
cultivating tenant, the order cannot be questioned in a parallel proceedings and
18/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
it has to be set aside only in the manner known to law and, therefore, the
landlord cannot maintain this revision for eviction as also the plea of permanent
injunction, which has been erroneously granted by the appellate court in the
second appeals.
29. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that once the status
of the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants stands decided by the authorities
constituted under the Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to question the
same and this Court, sitting in the revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with
the said order passed by the authorities.
30. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even in the
earlier round of revision in CRP (MD) Nos.2027 to 2039/2014, this Court has
held that once an order is passed by the authority, it acts as res judicata and,
therefore, the status of the landlord and sub-tenant as landlord and cultivating
tenant having been confirmed by the authority, it cannot be questioned in a
parallel proceeding unless it is reversed in the manner known to law.
Therefore, the present petition in the eviction petition before the Revenue
Divisional Officer cannot override the status of the sub-tenants as cultivating
tenants, which has been granted by the competent authority under the Tamil
Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act and, therefore, the
19/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
contentions advanced by the landlord were rightly rejected and, therefore, no
interference is warranted.
31. It is further submitted that the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred once
the original authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of
Tenancy Rights Act holds a particular person as a cultivating tenant and
pending civil proceeding would not bar any person to make an application to
record himself as a cultivating tenant. Further, in view of the stay granted by
this Court in the second appeal, nothing prevented the authority in deciding the
status of the sub-tenant as a cultivating tenant. Therefore, the question of the
sub-tenant being a cultivating tenant or not either by sub-tenancy or otherwise
cannot be questioned in parallel proceedings and, therefore, the only question to
be decided is whether the petition for eviction is to be allowed when the sub-
tenant has paid the arrears of rent.
32. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Section 3 (4)
(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act provides a discretion
to the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct payment of rent instead of eviction
and in the present case, the exercise of discretion in favour of the sub-tenant has
been justified for the reasons stated by the sub-tenant in the counter. The
landlord being unable to put personal labour for cultivating the lands and the
20/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
sub-tenants rely solely on agriculture for their livelihood, the Revenue
Divisional Officer has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in favour of the sub-
tenant.
33. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the definition
of ‘cultivating tenant’ u/s 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d) would include sub-tenant as well
since the said provisions clearly spell out that a person, who is a sub-tenant
ought to be a person who contributes his own physical labour. In the present
case, it is a indisputable fact that the sub-tenants and earlier in point of time,
their father, Akkini Ambalam, were contributing their own physical labour in
cultivating the paddy, since the year 1996 till date. It is not the case of the
landlord that the sub-tenants were not carrying out cultivation and, therefore,
the sub-tenants would squarely fall under the definition of ‘cultivating tenant’.
34. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the lands are
cultivable lands with irrigation rights and water source, which could only be put
to use for agricultural purposes and it cannot be used for any other purpose.
The landlords have no wherewithal or expertise to undertake cultivation and at
best could only give cultivable rights to the lands to other persons and when the
sub-tenants are ready to pay the rent to the landlord, the landlord could very
well give the cultivable rights to the lands to the sub-tenants.
21/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
35. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the made-over
document is not a document creating a sub-tenancy, but only a transfer of
tenancy and the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act has not made
any such distinction and the transfer of tenancy, as admitted in the present case,
is a complete transfer of rights by the transferee, viz., the tenants to the sub-
tenants and creation of sub-tenancy under the above Act is synonymous from
the reading Section 2 (a)(ii)(c) and (d) of the Act.
36. It is further submitted that sub-clause (d) of Section 2 (a)(ii) provides
for two scenarios, viz., the landlord evicts the main tenant by the process of law
or the tenant completely acquits himself from the possession of the land, which
precisely the tenant has done in this case and the tenancy rights have been taken
over by the sub-tenant, who has stepped into the shoes of the tenant. It is
further submitted that a tenant and sub-tenant could not co-exist at the same
time as cultivating tenant as the explanation to Section 2 clearly reveals that
only when the tenant ceases to be a tenant, the sub-tenant could step into the
shoes of the tenant to claim tenancy rights. In the present case, the tenant
having absolved himself from tenancy, the sub-tenant had stepped into the
shoes of the tenant and had taken over as the cultivating tenant and, therefore,
this clearly fulfils the provisions of the Act. Reliance is made to Section 5 of
the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act to claim
22/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
transfer of interest from the tenant to the sub-tenant.
37. Insofar as the reliance placed on the decisions in Balu Pillai and the
Division Bench Judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the said
decisions have not considered the definition of sub-tenant in Section 2 (aa)(ii)
(c) and (d) of the Act r/w Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands
Record of Tenancy Rights Act and such a distinction with regard to the same
has not been considered at any point of time. However, the transfer of rights of
a cultivating tenant upon a sub-tenant has been considered by this Court in
S.Murugesan – Vs – The Sub Registrar (W.P. (MD) No.8682 of 2007),
wherein, this Court has held that the right of tenancy under the Act is not an
untransferrable right so as to make the occupancy rights inalienable and that the
general rule is that the leasehold lands are transferrable. Therefore, the transfer
of tenancy rights in favour of the sub-tenant cannot be said to be erroneous or
illegal.
Submissions on behalf of the sub-tenants/appellants in the second appeals :
38. Learned counsel appearing for the sub-tenants/appellants submitted
that the appellate court failed to note that a suit for injunction is not
maintainable when an eviction proceedings against the sub-tenants is already
pending.
23/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
39. It is further submitted that the appellate court failed to consider the
matter relating to the question of right of cultivating tenant in which case the
civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the question and that the question has to
be decided only by the Revenue Court. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the tenants, who were cultivating tenants, had assigned
their tenancy right in favour of the father of the sub-tenants and such being the
case, the course open is only to call upon the civil court to decide the validity of
the Assignment Deed and the suit for permanent injunction cannot be
maintained.
40. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the suit was
laid only for a bare injunction and admittedly the physical possession of the
property was not with the landlord and, therefore, the suit ought to have been
dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief of
injunction. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the status of
the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants had already attained finality, as the order
of the original authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority and the
revisional authority and in such a backdrop, the civil court is barred under
Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and
the said issue was considered by this Court in Amsaraj – Vs – Tahsildar cum
24/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
Record Officer & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2849). The sub-tenant having
been granted the status of a cultivating tenant, there is a clear bar for
entertaining a suit by virtue of Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Lands Record of
Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. Therefore, the order passed by the first appellate
court in appeals deserves to be set aside by restoring the order passed in the
suit.
Submissions on behalf of the landlord/respondent in the second appeals :
41. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondents submitted
that only to defeat the eviction proceedings, the tenants, with the collusion of
the sub-tenants have created false and fabricated documents on 20.7.2001 in the
form of a made-over deed, alleged to have been entered into with the father of
the sub-tenants during the year 1996.
42. It is the submission of the learned counsel that when the original
lessee have no legal right to assign or made-over or transfer the lease, as such a
provision is not provided in the lease deed, entered into in the year 1968, which
has not been extended, the tenants cannot enter into a made-over deed with the
sub-tenants for transferring their leasehold rights over the lands without the
concurrence of the landlord, more so, when eviction petitions are pending
against them before the Revenue Court, which clearly shows that the made-over
25/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
document is only to defeat the rights of the landlord.
43. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the
petitions for evictions were filed as early as in the year 1994, the made-over
deed is alleged to have been entered into in the year 1996, more specifically on
5.2.1996, however, inspite of such a deed, the then sub-tenant, viz., Akkini
Ambalam had not taken any effort to implead himself in the eviction petition
before the Revenue Court during his life time, viz., till 1.6.2000, when he is
said to have passed away and only for the first time on 27.12.2001, the tenants
have disclosed before the Revenue Court about the entering into the made-over
deed with the sub-tenants.
44. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that suit was filed
on 16.08.2001 and only after the filing of the suit, the sub-tenants have sought
to implead themselves before the Revenue Court on 19.10.2001 when the
injunction petition was posted for counter and disposal when the original
cultivating tenants had no legal right to assign their leasehold right to any other
third party without the consent of the landlord.
45. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the trial court
26/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
dismissed the suit on the ground that the landlord failed to prove that the
tenants are alone cultivating the suit property, but the tenants and sub-tenants
have proved that it is only the sub-tenants who are cultivating the suit property.
Further, the trial court has rendered a finding that the fraudulent nature of
Ex.B-1 deed, viz., registered made-over deed dated 5.2.1996, alleged to be a
collusive act between the tenants and the sub-tenants, cannot be subject of
decision in the suit, as the suit has been laid only for bare injunction as no relief
of declaration has been sought.
46. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the lower
appellate court, appreciating the materials in proper perspective, had held that
the alienation of the tenants of their cultivating rights is an outright alienation
of the leasehold right in favour of Akkini Ambalan for consideration and
directed payment of paddy lease to the landlord. The assignors having not
retained any right over the tenancy rights and directed payment of lease amount
directly to the landlord, the said outright alienation of leasehold right is against
the principles laid down in the decision in Balu Pillai case (surpa). Therefore,
the lower appellate court held the document, Ex.B-1 to be invalid and non-est
in law, which finding is based on oral and documentary evidence and, therefore,
no interference is warranted with the same.
27/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
47. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record as also the decisions relied on, on behalf of the
parties.
48. One of the main contentions advanced on behalf of the sub-tenants is
that the order passed by the authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands
Record of Tenancy Rights Act recording the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants
cannot be the subject matter of a dispute before a civil court, as the order
passed by the said authority cannot be questioned except in the manner known
to law, viz., by means of a writ petition and, therefore, the declaration of status
of the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants cannot be the subject matter of lis in
the present revision petition. Therefore, at best, what could be adjudicated by
this Court is the revision petitions. Ancillary to the aforesaid contention, it is
the submission of the learned counsel that insofar as eviction is concerned, the
authority has to decide as to whether the tenant/sub-tenants are ready to pay the
rent and in such a case, eviction ought not to be resorted to, as the status of the
sub-tenants is under the made-over deed, which is a transfer of tenancy and the
main tenant having transferred his rights to the sub-tenant under a registered
document, the status of the sub-tenants stand protected u/s 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d)
of the Act.
28/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
49. Before entering into the factual matrix of the case, the crucial
question revolves around two aspects, viz., the status of the sub-tenants as
cultivating tenants and the eviction sought for in the light of the payment of the
arrears of lease amounts due to the landlord.
50. The term ‘Cultivating Tenant’ is defined u/s 2 (aa) of the Act to mean
–
“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, express 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) a 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) any such sub-tenant who continues in
29/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
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
(iii) does not include a mere intermediary or his heir;
Explanation . – A sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a
cultivating tenant of the holding under the landlord if
the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the
tenant of such landlord.”
51. From the above provision, it follows that a cultivating tenant is 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, express or implied and that he continues in possession of the land
upon determination of a tenancy agreement. Further, the said provision also
provides for sub-letting/sub-tenancy by the lessor of the land from the original
land owner, provided that such sub-tenant contributes his own physical labour
or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land. The said
provision also further provides that the sub-tenant continues in possession of
the land even if the person, who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to
have the right to possession of such land, meaning thereby, that the tenant, who
had possession of the land and had sub-let it, even if ceases to be a tenant under
the landlord, the sub-tenant can continue in possession of the land as a
cultivating tenant. However, the sub-tenant could be deemed to be a cultivating
30/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
tenant of the holding under the landlord only if his lessor of the sub-tenant
ceases to be a tenant of such landlord.
52. In the present case, there is no quarrel with the fact that an
unregistered deed came to be executed between one Ramaswamy Chettiar, the
predecessor-in-title of the revision petitioners and one Kumar Nair, the father of
Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair for a period of one year on certain terms and
conditions as enumerated in the unregistered deed dated 22.5.1968. The
conditions stipulated therein are to be followed scrupulously by the tenant
failing which the landlord reserved his right to give the land for lease to any
other person without even informing the tenant and also preserving his right for
entering into the said property, which has been given to the tenant for
cultivation. In fact, it is to be pointed out that Kumar Nair and, thereafter, his
sons Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair have been recognized as the cultivating
tenants and the landlord as also the authority have accepted the same, which is
evident from the order passed by the authority declaring the sub-tenant as the
cultivating tenant.
53. It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that even after the
death of Kumar Nair, the tenants were paying the lease rent properly till the
year 1984 and only thereafter, the tenants started defaulting in payment of rent,
31/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
which resulted in the filing of eviction petitions. The said facts are not
disputed.
54. It is the specific case of the landlord that he was not aware about the
sub-tenancy created by the tenant and he came to know about the same only
when he visited the lands during June, 2001 during which time he came to
know about the creation of sub-tenancy as the lands were being cultivated by
the sub-tenant. Thereafter, the suit in O.S. Nos.172 and 173/2001 came to be
filed seeking permanent injunction as stated supra.
55. Prior to the laying of the suit, eviction petitions have been filed by
the landlord against the tenant since 1994, which have mushroomed to the stage
of civil revision petitions, seeking eviction from the lands before the
appropriate authority u/s 3 (4)(aa) of the Act for non-payment of lease amount,
which were pending and every year, the non-payment of the lease rent has
resulted in the filing of a petition for eviction. The said fact is borne out by
records.
56. One crucial fact, which has to be noted even at this nascent stage is
that the tenant, who is the lessee under the landlord had not only appeared
32/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
before this Court, but has also given his no objection for impleadment of the
sub-tenant in the eviction petitions before the authority, which were filed by the
landlord. Curiously, the eviction petitions, though date back to 1994, the sub-
tenancy has been created only on 5.2.1996 through the made-over deed in
favour of the father of the sub-tenants, viz., Akkini Ambalam. The sub-tenancy
has been created pending the eviction petitions and till 2001, every year,
eviction petitions were filed only against the tenant by the landlord. Only after
the filing of the suit during June, 2001, the impleading petitions were filed by
the sub-tenant to implead themselves as party to the eviction petitions by
placing reliance upon the registered lease deed, entered into between the tenants
and their father Akkini Ambalam. The said impleading petitions in I.A. No.27
of 2014 in TCTP No.31 of 1997 were allowed vide order dated 26.2.2014
resulting in the filing of CRP (MD) Nos.2027 to 2039/2014.
57. The impleadment, which was challenged in CRP (MD) Nos.2027 to
2-039/2014 was allowed by this Court by recording the following findings :-
“7. ….. 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 pay33/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
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.”
58. From the above order, it clearly transpires that the only reason for
which the impleadment was allowed was to safeguard the interests of the sub-
tenant as the order passed in the said petitions would operate as res judicata
against the sub-tenants. Therefore, what is decided in the said revision petitions
was the necessity for which the impleadment ought to be done and the said
order cannot be taken to mean that the rights of the sub-tenants as cultivating
tenants were adjudicated. Therefore, the findings rendered in the said revision
34/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
petitions cannot act as a bar for this Court to decide the relief of eviction sought
for in the petitions before the authority.
59. Based on the said impleadment, the petition of the sub-tenants to
register them as cultivating tenants were decided by the Tahsildar vide his order
in T.R.12/2001/Aa3 dated 10.12.2015. Though the said order of the original
authority has been confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities vide
orders dated 21.08.2017 and 24.01.2023, however, the original order dated
10.12.2015, the findings of which have been approved by the appellate
authority and the revisional authoritiy are material for deciding the case on hand
and, therefore, the particular portions of the said order of the original authority
are scanned and quoted hereunder :-
35/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
36/84https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
60. True it is that the this Court sitting in its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not normally interfere with an
order passed by the authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record
of Tenancy Rights Act in relation to a cultivating tenant under the Cultivating
Tenants Protection Act, by appreciating the materials on record to arrive at a
different view, but the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar this Court to appreciate the findings
recorded in the order to find out whether the said order is perverse or not. For
better understanding, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is quoted
hereunder :-
“115. Revision. –
1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which
has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court
and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate
Court appears –
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by
law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity,
The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks
fit.
(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or
reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either37/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
to the High court or to any Court subordinate thereto.
(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of a suit or other
proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other
proceeding is stayed by the High Court.”
61. Perversity of an order is always a ground for interference under the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. It is to be pointed out that the
sustainability of the said order has not been put in issue but definitely it is an
ancillary question that needs to be answered so as to decide the plea for eviction
as the correctness of the order could very well be a ground to appreciate the
ground for eviction, which has otherwise been passed on a two-fold reason,
viz., the sub-tenant being registered as a cultivating tenant and the overdue
amounts towards the lease rental having been paid.
62. A perusal of the findings, which have been recorded by the Tahsildar
to register the sub-tenant as a cultivating tenant are peculiar and is beyond the
comprehension of this Court. The authority has recorded a finding that if
really the legal heirs of Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair were cultivating the
lands, definitely, the said legal heirs would have filed a petition for seeking
cultivating rights as cultivating tenants and as they have not filed any such
claim, the Court had drawn the inference that the legal heirs of Paraman Nair
and Krishnan Nair were not cultivating the lands.
38/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
63. A furthermore curious finding that has been recorded by the authority
is that the legal heirs of Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair have not filed any
petition seeking cultivating rights which could only be inferred that the legal
heirs of the said Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair had no connection with the
said lands. However, the said finding is grossly erroneous that even in the suit,
which was laid in the year 2001, the landlord had recognized the tenants as the
cultivating tenants and ever since the eviction petitions were filed by the
landlord, the same were filed only against the tenant and it is only the sub-
tenant, who had sought impleadment in the eviction petitions. Inspite of the
above, the authority has recorded a finding that the legal heirs of Paraman Nair
and Krishnan Nair had no right and connection over the lands belonging to the
landlord, but the deposition of the wife of Paraman Nair and the sons of
Paraman Nair in O.S. No.172/2001 had been adverted to by the authority,
wherein the said individuals have deposed that Paraman Nair and Krishnan
Nair had given the made-over deed to one Akkini Ambalam, the father of the
sub-tenants.
64. Section 2 (aa)(ii) (c) and (d) of the Act gives right only to the
cultivating tenant to sub-lease the lands to a sub-tenant for cultivation. If the
tenants are not cultivating tenants, they have no right to sub-lease the lands and
39/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
if the tenants are cultivating tenants, the sub-lease could not grant the rights of
cultivating tenants upon the sub-tenants, but only the sub-tenants would be a
sub-lessee below the cultivating tenants so long as the tenants remain tenants
under the landlord. Only when they cease to be tenants under the landlord, the
sub-tenants could seek for cultivating rights, that too, when the lessor of the
sub-tenant, with the concurrence of the landlord had given the leasehold rights
to the sub-tenants while absolving himself from the role of cultivating tenants.
However, such is not the pleadment in the said case nor is there any material
evidencing the same.
65. The further finding of the authority baffles this Court furthermore
than the above findings. On the one hand, the authority has recorded a finding
that the witness, one Vasudevan, who was examined on the side of the landlord,
in his deposition in cross-examination, though initially deposed that no civil
revision petition has been filed before the High Court, however, when
confronted with the civil revision petitions, the said witness accepted the same,
prompting the authority to hold that the deposition of the said witness cannot be
relied upon. While recording the aforesaid finding, even in the absence of any
material, both oral and documentary, merely on the basis of the averment of the
petitioners therein, the authority recorded a finding that the transfer of tenancy
was brought to the knowledge of the landlord, viz., Govindarajan by Paraman
40/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
Nair, Krishnan Nair and the sub-lessee, Akkini Ambalam, on the three going to
the house of the landlord and informing about the sub-tenancy and the made-
over deed. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how an averment could
for the basis of acceptance by the authority but an erroneous admission by a
witness could be castigated as if the witness is unreliable. One other aspect,
which is also very curious to note is that the authority has rendered a finding
that the deposition of Vasudevan cannot be accepted, as it is on the basis of the
unregistered power of attorney deed. However, the other documents, which
prevailed upon the authority to hold that the sub-tenants are, in fact, cultivating
tenants, have not been spelt out in the said order. Therefore, the order of the
authority, even on a cursory look, clearly reveals that the order is not predicated
upon proper appreciation of materials, but more on the averments of the sub-
tenants and on the basis of the impleading of the sub-tenants in the eviction
petition, as ordered by the Revenue Court, which, for reasons recorded in the
revision petitions, has been affirmed by this Court.
66. The suit in O.S. Nos.172 & 173/2001 had come to be dismissed
against which A.S. Nos.144 and 145/2010 had come to be filed by the landlord,
which were allowed in his favour against which the sub-tenant had filed second
appeal before this Court in which a plea was made for stay of the judgment and
decree passed in the appeal on the specific ground that execution petition has
41/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
been filed by the landlord and only in that backdrop, this Court, as an interim
measure, so as to safeguard the interests of either party to the lis had granted an
interim order of suspension. The second appeal was pending consideration of
this Court.
67. However, without appreciating the fact that this Court had not
deliberated on the prayer made in the suit, which, on the said date was in favour
of the landlord, which, only in the interests of either party was kept suspended,
the authority had passed the order conferring the status of cultivating tenant on
the sub-tenant without adverting to any of the above materials and the
provisions of the Act and the position of law. The authority ought to have
awaited the verdict in the second appeal, when the benefit of the appellate order
was in favour of the landlord. The hastiness with which the authority had acted
in granting the status on the sub-tenant as cultivating tenant unmindful of the
pendency of the second appeal before this Court speaks volumes about the
order, which this Court does not want to elaborate any further keeping in mind
the judicial decorum that requires to be followed.
68. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the order in appeal and
revision against the aforesaid findings leave more gaping holes in the manner in
which the appeal and revision have been dealt with, as there is no proper
42/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
reasoning for affirming the said order passed by the original authority; rather
what has prevailed upon the appellate and revisional authorities to affirm the
said findings are the further orders passed in CRP (MD) Nos.1130 and
1131/2016, wherein, this Court, as an interim measure, had directed the
payment of the lease amount due to the landlord. This Court had not
deliberated on the eviction petitions which were pending, but had only directed
payment of the dues that were due to the landlord over two decades, which was
not paid by the tenants as well as the sub-tenants. Merely because the tenant
has created sub-tenancy cannot be construed that it is a valid one to hold that
the sub-tenants could be called as cultivating tenants.
69. For the sub-tenants to be called as cultivating tenants, the sub-tenants
ought to fulfil the criteria prescribed u/s 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d) of the Act, which
has already been extracted supra. In the present case, the contesting parties are
sub-tenants, which sub-tenancy was on the basis of a registered made-over deed
by the tenants in favour of the father of the sub-tenants. However, one crucial
aspect needs to be looked into as the leasehold rights of the tenants were the
subject matter of eviction in the various petitions filed by the landlord.
However, knowing fully well about the eviction petitions, the tenants had
entered into the sub-tenancy, that too, by receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- for
parting with their leasehold rights. It is to be pointed out that nowhere there is
43/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
any material, which would conclusively establish that the landlord was put on
notice with regard to the sub-tenancy. There is only an averment of the sub-
tenants, which has been accepted to be gospel truth by the authority, who
granted the status of cultivating tenant to the sub-tenants, that the made-over
deed and the sub-tenancy was made known to the landlord by the tenants and
sub-tenants. However, when the landlord was briefed of the same is not placed
on record, but the landlord had clearly, all through the litigation, both before
this Court and before the civil court as also before the authorities in the eviction
petition has maintained a stand that he came to know about the sub-tenancy
only in June, 2001, when he went to the lands to inspect during which time he
found that the lands were under the occupation of the sub-tenants, which
prompted him to file the suits in O.S. Nos.172 and 173/2001.
70. Section 2(aa)(ii)(c) specifies that a sub-tenant could be called a
cultivating tenant, if such sub-tenant continues to be in possession of the land
and contributes his physical labour and that by such sub-letting, the person who
sublet the land ceases to have right to possession. Further, the explanation as
to when a sub-tenant would be deemed to be a cultivating tenant is provided in
Section 2 (aa), wherein, in clear and unambiguous term, it has been provided
that for a sub-tenant to be deemed a cultivating tenant of the holding under the
landlord, it is only when the lessor of such sub-tenant has ceased to be the
44/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
tenant of such landlord. From the above, the sub-tenant could be held to be a
cultivating tenant only if his lessor ceases to be a tenant of such landlord. In
the present case, it is the claim of the sub-tenant that the sub-tenancy was
brought to the notice of the landlord, which has been disputed. As stated above,
there is no material placed evidencing that the landlord was informed of the
sub-tenancy by the tenant; rather, it is the specific case of the landlord that he
came to know about the sub-tenancy only when he visited the land during June,
2001 and came to know about the sub-tenancy which prompted the landlord to
file the suit in O.S. Nos.172 and 173/2001. From the above, it is clearly evident
that on the date when the registered made-over deed was alleged to have been
entered into between Paraman Nair and Krishnan Nair in favour of Akkini
Ambalam, the father of the sub-tenants, the tenants were very much tenants
under the landlord, on the basis of the alleged oral agreement, which has been
accepted by the authority and they did not cease to be the tenants under the
landlord and even till the filing of the petitions for eviction in the year 2022,
though on the basis of the impleadment the sub-tenant was shown as a party, the
eviction was sought for only as against the tenants and the landlord had not
sought eviction as against the sub-tenants, meaning thereby, that the tenants did
not cease to be the tenants under the landlord so as to enable the sub-tenants to
be clothed with the status of cultivating tenants. Further, even the impleadment
of the sub-tenants as parties to the eviction petition, at every stage has been
45/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
contested by the landlord, only for this Court to hold that such impleadment is
necessary in the interest of all parties to the lis, including the sub-tenants.
71. However, this crucial fact has been lost sight of by the authority,
while conferring the sub-tenants with the status of cultivating tenants and
directing registration of their name as cultivating tenants in the register. There
is no material pointing to the fact that the consent of the landlord for
transferring the leasehold rights was obtained by the tenants. True it is that
Section 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d) provides for sub-tenancy, but it is within the
boundaries prescribed under the said provisions, which, as aforestated, have not
been fulfilled, which fact has totally been lost sight of by the authority while
conferring the status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenant. The perversity of
the direction of the authority in conferring the status of cultivating tenants on
the sub-tenants is writ large from the aforesaid facts and the said perversity
definitely strikes at the root of the order deserving it to be set aside.
72. This Court in the first round of revision in CRP (MD) Nos.2027 to
2039/2014 did not recognize the sub-tenants as cultivating tenants or recognize
the sub-tenancy as one falling u/s 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d) of the Act. The only
reason that prevailed upon this Court in the revision not to interfere with the
said impleadment was that any order setting aside the said impleadment should
46/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
not work hardship to the impleading party at a later point of time if the eviction
petition comes to be ordered in favour of the landlord as the said order would
act as res judicata tying the hands of the said party from seeking any relief.
Only in that view of the matter, this Court did not interfere with the
impleadment as could be evident from the portion of the order, which has
already been extracted supra.
73. However, an erroneous appreciation of the order passed by this Court
in the above revision petitions coupled with the order of suspension which was
granted by this Court in the miscellaneous petitions in S.A. (MD) Nos.831 and
832 of 2014 had resulted in the entertainment of the petition for grant of status
as cultivating tenant. The interim suspension was granted only on the
apprehension of the sub-tenants, who were the petitioners therein that the
landlord had filed execution petition for enforcing the decree passed in A.S.
Nos. 144 and 145/2010 which, if not granted, would prejudice the sub-tenants.
However, the said order of suspension has caused graver prejudice to the
landlord, as the sub-tenants had prosecuted their petition seeking the status of
cultivating tenant and had obtained the same on 10.12.2015. This Court cannot
be made a party to such a prejudice being meted out to the landlord, as this
Court, as the temple of justice, is bound to balance the scales while rendering
justice and cannot be a mute spectator to an illegality that is meted out to the
47/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
landlord.
74. Sub-section (3) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
extracted supra, clearly lays down that a revision shall not operate as a stay of
suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other
proceeding is stayed by the High Court. This Court, in the miscellaneous
petitions in the second appeals, had granted an order of interim suspension,
suspending the operation of the order of injunction granted by the appellate
court. The plea for status of cultivating tenant, as sought for by the sub-tenants,
way back in the year 2001, was disposed of by the authority taking the order of
suspension as a stay, which would not prevent the authority to pass the order.
The order of suspension was not only to safeguard the interests of the sub-
tenant, but equally the interests of the landlord as well and, therefore, the
authority, granting the status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenants, ought to
have awaited the final verdict in the second appeals as also in the eviction
petitions. However, even a cursory glance at the order reveals that
consideration has not been given to the eviction petitions and the second
appeals pending before this Court and merely on the basis of the order passed in
the earlier revision petitions, pertaining to the impleadment of the sub-tenants
as a party to the eviction proceedings, the authority had granted the status of
cultivating tenant even without appreciating the provisions of Section 2 (aa)(ii)
48/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
(c) and (d) of the Act as is revealed by the order passed by the original authority
as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.
75. The view of this Court gets furthermore affirmed from the earlier
order passed by this Court in the second round of revision petitions in CRP
(MD) Nos.1130 and 1131 of 2016, wherein, this Court, vide order dated
13.07.2016 had made the following observations :-
“2. The unfortunate landlords are the revision petitioners and
for the sin committed by the original land owner Late
Govindarajan and S.Pushpavalli for leasing out the lands to an
extent of about 6 acres to one Kumar Nair in the year 1971,
they have been landed up in litigations of about forty two
cases.
* * * * * * *
11. On the other hand, Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would contend that though the
lessees have to pay the annual lease at the rate of 72 bags of
paddy for each Fasali year, without prejudice to the rights of
the landlords, the tenants may be directed to give paddy at the
rate of 48 bags per year or equal amount of the present market
value. It is further submitted that the original tenants have no
right to assign or sub-lease the property in favour of the 3 rd
parties. So, the first respondent in both the revisions cannot
claim to be a cultivating tenant.
12. It is also relevant to note that the first respondent in both
revisions have filed applications for impleadment in the
eviction proceedings, which are pending before the Revenue49/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
Court, claiming that the original lessees Paraman Nair and
Krishnan Nair have made over their lease hold rights in favour
of their father Akkini Ambalam and after his demise, they have
been in possession and enjoyment of the land. The legal-heirs
of the original lessees namely, Paraman Nair and Krishnan
Nair endorsed “no objection” for impleadment of the proposed
parties in the eviction proceedings, which would reveal that the
respondents are acting hand in glove. Further, the pendency of
the cases before the Revenue Court would also establish that
the tenants and the sub-tenants have not paid 6 the rent so far.
* * * * * * *
16. In (1982)1 SCC 159 in the case of Chinnamarkathian vs.
Ayyavoo, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when the
tenant initiated proceedings under Section 3(a) of the Act, the
Revenue Divisional Officer shall grant time to deposit the
arrears of rent and when an eviction proceedings initiated by
the landlord under Sub Section (4)(b) of Section 3 of the Act,
the tenants like the respondent in this case do not deserve
sympathy or concession of the court. It has been held as
follows:-
“25. Now as I read sub-section (4), it gives the RDO
power either to allow the application of the landlord or
to dismiss it after he has held a summary enquiry into
the matter. If the application is allowed an order of
eviction has to be passed. If it is dismissed the
proceedings again come to an end. However, if the
ground of eviction is non- payment of rent, the RDO is
closed with power to allow the cultivating tenant to
deposit the arrears and costs as directed. The power is
discretionary and, while exercising the 7 same, it is not
incumbent on the RDO to grant time. If the legislature50/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
intended to make it obligatory on the part of the RDo to
fix a time for deposit of the arrears in all cases covered
by clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-section (2) there is
no reason why it should have used the word “may” in
relation to the grant of time. Support for this view is
available in clause (b) of sub-section (3) wherein, the
legislature has directed: “If the Court finds that any
sum is due it shall allow the cultivating tenant such
time as it may consider just and reasonable….
” (emphasis supplied)
In this situation it must be held that while the
opportunity of depositing the arrears of rent cannot be
denied to a cultivating tenant during the course of
proceedings under sub-section (3), the same is not
available as of right under clause (b) of sub-section 4.
The difference in the language used by the legislature is
significant and not without purpose. The intention of
the legislature appears to be that normally a defaulting
tenant must seek the help of the Court all by himself
and that if he does so he must be protected; but that a
defaulting tenant who waits for payment of rent till he
is sought to be evicted by the landlord is not necessarily
entitled to the same protection. Circumstances may
exist which may place him at par with a tenant covered
by sub-section (3) but then it may not necessarily be so.
That is why it is left to the discretion of the RDO to
grant time to the cultivating tenant or to deny him that
opportunity. An example of a case in which no time
should be allowed would be that of a tenant who,
although in affluent circumstances at all relevant point
of time, has failed to make payment of rent year after51/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
year in spite of repeated demands from an otherwise
indigent landlord and whose conduct is, therefore,
contumacious calling for no sympathy or concession.
The extension to him of the same facility which is
afforded to a willing tenant under sub-section (3) would
be uncalled for and in fact unjust.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
76. The lamenting of this Court in the above order would be evident
from the manner in which the issue has been started, where the learned Judge
has addressed that the “unfortunate lands are the revision petitioners and for
the sin committed by the original land owner Late Govindarajan and
S.Pushpavalli for leasing out the lands to the extent of about 6 acres to one
Kumar Nair in the year 1971, they have been landed in litigations for about
forty two cases”.
77. Even in the earlier round of revision petitions in CRP (MD) Nos.
1130 and 1131/2016, this Court was able to understand the misery faced by the
landlord at the hands of the alleged cultivating tenants, not able to repossess
their lands as also the amounts that are due to them by way of lease rental over
the past 31 years. There is a categorical finding recorded by the learned single
Judge that all through the years, the sub-tenants are only defending their cases
and they have not initiated proceedings to deposit the rent as per Section 3 (a)
52/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
of the Act, though it is claimed that the landlords are not responding to the
notice expressing their willingness to pay the rent. The above finding recorded
in the earlier round of revision clearly portray that the sub-tenants were not
inclined to pay the lease rental due, but only pretending that they are ready and
willing to pay the amount by sending notices, though in actuality, they had not
initiated any proceedings for depositing the lease rental u/s 3 (a) of the Act.
Only to safeguard the interests of the landlord, the direction to pay the lease
rental was ordered in the miscellaneous petitions while keeping the revision
petitions pending for further adjudication.
78. The revision petitions were filed by the landlord challenging the
order passed in I.A. Nos.29 and 30 of 2015 in TCTP Nos.6 and 7 of 2014,
which also pertains to the impleadment of the sub-tenants as party to the
eviction proceedings pertaining to the later years. The question of impleadment
was already considered and held in favour of the sub-tenants in the earlier
revision petitions in CRP (MD) Nos.2027 to 2039/2014 and, therefore, except
directing the payment of arrears of rent, in CRP (MD) Nos.1130 and
1131/2016, the said issue was not deliberated and the revision petitions were
closed. Therefore, insofar as the aspect of revision is concerned, no order was
passed with regard to the plea of eviction on merits by this Court. Therefore,
the authority under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act was
53/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
bound to consider all the petitions, which were pending before it on merits and
pass orders with regard to the eviction.
79. In the aftermath of the aforesaid order passed in the revisions, all the
eviction petitions, which were pending before the authority were taken up and
considered and the authority and relying upon the directions issued by this
Court in which this Court had fixed 8 bags for the purpose of calculating the
interim payment to be made with regard to the lease rental, which were due
even at the hands of the tenants, held that the sub-tenants having complied with
the directions issued by this Court in the earlier revisions and further the
landlord having not proved that the agreed rental was 12 bags per acre, though
Ex.L-1 of the landlord pertained only to the first year, which was entered into
between Ramasamy Chettiar and Kumar Nair, the predecessors-in-title of the
landlord and the tenants, the authority held that thereafter, the lease rental
having not been spelt out, the fixation of lease rental at 8 bags per acre arrived
at by this Court was held to be the final lease rental on the basis of which this
Court had directed payment of lease rental. The authority further held that the
lease rental having been paid, there arises no question of eviction and the
eviction petitions were dismissed. However, the said orders had come to be
passed without adverting to Section 3 (2)(aa) and 3(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.
54/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
80. In this backdrop, Section 3 (2)(aa) and 3 (4)(a), which pertains to
eviction of cultivating tenants by the landlord, for better appreciation, are
quoted hereunder :-
“3. Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants. – (1) Subject to
the next succeeding sub-sections, no cultivating tenant shall be
evicted from his holdings or any part thereof, [……..] by or at
the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a degree
or order of a Court or otherwise
(2) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, sub-section (1)
shall not apply to a cultivating tenant-
* * * * * * *
(aa) who, in the other areas of the State of Tamil Nadu, if in
arrear at the commencement of this Act, with respect to the rent
payable to the landlord and accrued due subsequent to the 31st
March, 1954, does not pay such rent within a month after such
commencement or who in respect of rent payable to the
landlord after such commencement, does not pay such rent
within a month after such rent becomes due; or
* * * * * * *
(4) (a) Every landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant
falling under subsection (2) shall, whether or not there is an
order or decree of a Court for the eviction of such cultivating
tenant, make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer
and such application shall bear a Court-fee stamp of one
rupee.
(b) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Divisional
Officer shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their
representations, hold a summary enquiry into the matter and55/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it
and in a case falling under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-
section (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the
provisions contained in sub-section (3), the Revenue Divisional
Officer may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he
considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative
circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for
depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive
of such costs as he may direct. If the cultivating tenant deposits
the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent
under sub-section (3) (b). If the cultivating tenant fails to
deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer
shall pass an order for eviction;”
81. From Section 3 (2)(aa) it is clear that where the tenant pays the
arrears of rent within the period prescribed from the date of commencement of
the Act, the landlord shall not evict the tenant. However, the landlord could
seek for eviction by making an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer
u/s 3 (4)(a) and u/s 3 (4)(b), the Revenue Divisional Officer, after giving
reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their
representations, pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing the
eviction petition.
82. There is no quarrel with the fact that the tenant had paid the arrears
of lease rental on the directions of this Court. The lease rental, which stood
56/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
accumulated was for over a period of 31 years. The lease rental has not been
paid since 1984 by the tenants and even after the alleged transfer of leasehold
rights to the sub-tenants since 1996, the lease rental has not been paid by the
sub-tenants to the landlord till order was passed by this Court in CRP (MD)
Nos.1130 and 1131/2016 on 13.07.2016 giving a month’s time and even
thereafter, the entire interim amount fixed by the Court was paid only by
15.11.2016, i.e., almost four months from the date the amount was directed to
be paid. This clearly shows that the intention of the sub-tenants had all along
been only in the dragging of the proceedings while enjoying the lands without
paying the lease amount.
83. The authority, while dismissing the eviction petitions, though noticed
that the amount of lease rental fixed by this Court was paid, however lost sight
of the crucial facts, which formed the basis for this Court to give such a
direction, which has already been extracted supra. Reliance was placed in the
earlier revision petitions on the decision in Chinnamarkathian & Ors. – Vs –
Ayyavoo & Ors. (1982 (1) SCC 159), wherein, the Apex Court has held that
when the tenants had not taken any steps to deposit the arrears of rent which
resulted in the initiation of eviction proceedings by the landlord, such tenants
do not deserve any sympathy or concession. In this context, at the risk of
repetition, the relevant portion of the decision of the Apex Court is reproduced
57/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
hereunder :-
“In this situation it must be held that while the opportunity of
depositing the arrears of rent cannot be denied to a cultivating
tenant during the course of proceedings under sub-section (3),
the same is not available as of right under clause (b) of sub-
section 4. The difference in the language used by the
legislature is significant and not without purpose. The
intention of the legislature appears to be that normally a
defaulting tenant must seek the help of the Court all by himself
and that if he does so he must be protected; but that a
defaulting tenant who waits for payment of rent till he is sought
to be evicted by the landlord is not necessarily entitled to the
same protection. Circumstances may exist which may place
him at par with a tenant covered by sub-section (3) but then it
may not necessarily be so. That is why it is left to the discretion
of the RDO to grant time to the cultivating tenant or to deny
him that opportunity. An example of a case in which no time
should be allowed would be that of a tenant who, although in
affluent circumstances at all relevant point of time, has failed
to make payment of rent year after year in spite of repeated
demands from an otherwise indigent landlord and whose
conduct is, therefore, contumacious calling for no sympathy or
concession. The extension to him of the same facility which is
afforded to a willing tenant under sub-section (3) would be
uncalled for and in fact unjust.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
84. The aforesaid decision squarely applies to the case on hand. In the
58/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
present case, though eviction petitions were filed, except for pleading that
notice was sent to the landlord with regard to payment of lease rental, the sub-
tenant had not taken any steps under sub-section (3) of Section 3. Only upon
filing of the revision petitions in CRP (MD) Nos.1130 and 1131/2016, that too,
after contest, upon the directions of this Court, the sub-tenant had taken almost
four months to pay even the interim lease rental fixed by the Court.
85. It is true that proviso to Section 3 (4)(b) manifests in favour of a sub-
tenant from depositing such arrears of rent, which have become time barred
under the law of limitation, which was also the subject matter of discussion by
the authority while dismissing the eviction petitions, however, it is to be pointed
out that the present case cannot be brought under the time barred claims as
diligently the landlord had been prosecuting the case for eviction by filing
eviction petitions, which were pending before the authority without any
directions having been issued to the sub-tenant to pay the lease rental.
Therefore, the present case on hand would not attract the proviso to Section 3
(4) of the Act for make the claim time barred.
86. When the sub-tenant had not taken any steps to deposit the lease
rental and had not sought refugee u/s 3 (3) of the Act with regard to deposit of
rent, the defaulting tenant cannot seek the indulgence of the authority for
59/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
retaining his possession of lands as a cultivating tenant, moreso, when the status
of cultivating tenant granted to the sub-tenant by the Tahsildar is itself
erroneous for the reasons discussed supra. The decision in Chinnamarkathian
case (supra) clearly depicts the scenario as is revealed in the present case in
which the sub-tenant, all though in affluent circumstances at all relevant point
of time, as put forth by him by claiming that he has sent notice for receipt of
lease rental, had failed to make payment of rent year after year. The said
conduct of the sub-tenant is clearly contumacious and does not call for any
sympathy or concession from this Court.
87. In this backdrop, the only issue that now remains to be determined is
whether there exists a relationship of landlord and cultivating tenant between
the landlord and the sub-tenant, though the status of cultivating tenant
conferred on the sub-tenant by the Tahsildar, as discussed above.
88. One important material, which transpires from the record here,
which has been discussed earlier, but necessity requires discussion here as well
is that the suit was filed for permanent injunction as against the cultivating
tenant restraining the tenant from transferring the tenancy rights of the suit
schedule property to any person and also against the sub-tenant, his agents and
men from entering into the lands of the landlord. Nowhere the landlord had
60/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
recognized the sub-tenant and in fact there is no material evidencing that the
sub-tenancy was created with the knowledge of the landlord or that the landlord
was informed of the same, but for the mere averment by the sub-tenant before
the authority, which has been accepted as gospel truth. As already aforesaid,
only on the basis of the averment made before the authority that the tenant and
sub-tenant had informed about the creation of sub-tenancy before the landlord,
the authority had construed that the sub-tenancy was within the knowledge of
the landlord. In fact, there is no elicitation on behalf of the tenant and the sub-
tenant from the evidence of the witnesses that the creation of sub-tenancy
between the tenant and the sub-tenant was known to the landlord. It is the
consistent case of the landlord that he came to know about the sub-tenancy only
when he visited the lands during June, 2001 to find some other person, other
than the cultivating tenant, handling the lands, which prompted him to file the
suit seeking permanent injunction. In the abovesaid backdrop, it becomes
imperative for the tenant and sub-tenant to prove that the creation of sub-
tenancy and the entering into of sub-tenancy by the lessor of the sub-tenant was
within the knowledge of the landlord and mere presumption cannot partake the
character of proof, as the standard of proof required is of the highest level when
it is the clear stand of the landlord that he was not aware of the sub-tenancy.
89. Further, the sub-tenant has not proved that the lessor of the sub-
61/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
tenant, viz., the tenant, has ceased to be tenant of the landlord. Even the claim
of the sub-tenant is prefaced on the registered made-over deed through which
the leasehold rights stood transferred from the tenant to the sub-tenant,
however, the leasehold rights, even according to the authority as also the
parties, barring the first year, was only oral and in such a scenario, without
proper proof, the court cannot take sides of any party with regard to their rights
under the oral lease agreement. When there is no material to show that the
status of tenant stood extinguished on account of recitals in the lease agreement
upon the tenant releasing his leasehold rights to the sub-tenant, the sub-tenant
cannot qualify himself to be a cultivating tenant so as to enter into the shoes of
the tenant to make any such claim, as prescribed under Section 2 (aa)(ii) (d) of
the Act. Further, as stated above, the leasehold rights have been parted away
for monetary consideration, which could only be inferred that the landlord has
not been put on notice with regard to sub-tenancy, as the parting of leasehold
rights for monetary consideration, if really had been within the knowledge of
the landlord, definitely, there would have been a recital in the registered deed
between the tenant and the sub-tenant to evidence the same. Therefore, the
only inference that could be drawn from the above is that only to defeat the
rights of the landlord the tenant and sub-tenant have colluded amongst
themselves and created the registered made-over deed, which would in no way
bind the landlord as the landlord had not released the tenant from the alleged
62/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
oral lease agreement, which has been acted upon by the authorities.
90. The decision relied on in Balu Pillai case (supra), on behalf of the
landlord, would be of much significance in the present case. In the said case,
the learned single Judge of this Court has categorically held that the cultivating
tenant cannot sell away his leasehold rights in favour of a third party for
consideration, but can sub-let the premises. The relevant portion of the
decision is as hereunder :-
“23. Transferability of the cultivating rights:—
The learned counsel appearing for defendants 5 to 7 would
vehemently submit that the cultivating tenant has every right to
transfer the leasehold right in favour of a third party. But, for
the question put by this court before the learned counsel
appearing for defendants 5 to 7 whether there is any provision
either under the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protect Act,
1955 or under the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of
Tenancy Rights Act dealing with transfer of cultivating right,
he would submit that there was no such specific provision
under the Act recognizing the transfer of cultivating right by
the cultivating tenants to a third party. But, the learned counsel
appearing for defendants 5 to 7 banked on the decision of this
court in Ramiah Nattar v. Jambakathamma & Ors. (1977 TLNJ
157). That was a case where the question whether a legatee of
the leasehold right inherits the same with all incidents of
inheritability and transferability. In the said case, on facts, it
was found that the tenant holding over bequeathed the63/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
leasehold right in favour of the first defendant. Firstly, it is
found that the question whether the leasehold right can be
transferred by way of an instrument was not specifically dealt
with in that judgment. Secondly, the facts and circumstances of
the above case would not apply to the facts of this case.
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
sublet the premises to a third party.
25. Factually it is found that the first 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
first 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 first 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 subtenant
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 put forth
before this court for interference.”
64/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
91. Further, the decision of the Division Bench in Kulanthai’s case
(supra) also leans in favour of the landlord, as therein, the court held that a
cultivating tenant must physically labour on the land to maintain tenancy rights
and any transfer of such rights without adherence to statutory provisions is
invalid. In the said context, the court held as under :-
“4. The Revenue Court by its order dated 04.07.2013 allowed
the Appeal and directed registration of the names of the
appellants as the tenants. In coming to the said conclusion, the
Revenue Court had taken note of the fact that a statutory
tenancy which is protected under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating
Tenants Protection Act, 1955 is not transferable for
consideration. Adverting to the definition of the term tenant
under the said Act, the Revenue Court found that a transferee
from a tenant for consideration cannot claim to be a statutory
tenant under the enactment.
* * * * * * *
17. An agricultural lessee becomes a statutory tenant entitled
to protection from eviction. Such statutory tenancies are not
transferrable. This Court in Balu Pillai @ Balasubramania
Pillai & others v. Mahadevan and others, referred to supra,
had after referring to the provisions of the Act, has concluded
that in the absence of any specific provision recognizing
transfer of a cultivating right by the cultivating tenant to a
third party, such transfer would be invalid. Therefore, we see
no reason to differ from the views expressed by the learned
Single Judge in Balu Pillai @ Balasubramania Pillai & others
v. Mahadevan and others.
65/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
92. Insofar as the decision in Murugesan case (supra), which has been
relied on, on behalf of the sub-tenant, the facts in the said case are totally
different, as in the said case, there was a dispute with regard to the status of
cultivating tenant between the landlord and the tenant, whereas there is no
dispute with regard to the landlord and tenant in the present case.
93. From the above, it clearly crystallises that the law on the issue as
well as the facts in the present case are travel in the same line and the decisions
in Balu Pillai and Kulanthai case which have a direct bearing on the facts of
the present case have not been properly taken into consideration by the
authority while conferring the status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenant and
the perversity of the said order definitely requires to be interfered with.
94. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the sub-tenant
that the order of the authority cannot be questioned even before a civil court,
however, the jurisdiction of this court is not barred, as under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, as this Court, under its revisional powers, could very
well appreciate the findings as to the correctness of the said order, as has been
held by the Apex Court in S.Rama Iyer – Vs – Sundarasa Ponnapoondar
(AIR 1966 SC 1431), wherein the Apex Court held thus :-
66/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
“The Act came into force on September 27, 1955 and was
amended from time to time. Originally, the Act was temporary,
recently .it, has been made permanent. The Act was passed for
the protection of certain cultivating tenants from
eviction. Section 2 defines, enter alia, ‘cultivating tenant’ and
‘landlord’. ‘Cultivating tenant’ is a person who carries on
personal cultivation on the land under a tenancy agreement,
express or implied, and includes any person who continues in
possession of the land after determination of the tenancy
agreement and the heirs of such person. ‘Landlord’ means the
person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from his holding
or a part of it. Section 1(1) protects the cultivating tenant from
eviction at the instance of the landlord whether in execution of
a decree or order of Court or otherwise. Section 3(2) sets out
the grounds of eviction, and if one of these grounds is made
out, the protection from eviction given by s. 3(i) is taken
away. Section 3(3) enables the cultivating tenant to deposit the
rent in Court. Section 3(3)(b) requires the Court to “cause
notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and
determine, after a summary enquiry, whether the amount
deposited represents the correct amount of rent due from the
cultivating tenant”. The expression “Court” in s. 3(3) means
the Court which passed the decree or order for eviction, or
where there is no such decree or order, the Revenue Divisional
Officer. The Act also vests jurisdiction in the Revenue
Divisional Officer to entertain and decide an application by
the landlord for eviction of a cultivating tenant-s. 3(4), an
application by cultivating tenants evicted before and after the
commencement of the Act for restoration of possession-ss, 4(1)
and 4(5), an application by the landlord for the resumption of
land for personal cultivations. 4-A(1), an application by the67/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
cultivating tenant for restoration of possession from a landlord
so resuming possessions. 4-A(2), applications for resumption
of possession by the landlord from his cultivating tenant and by
the cultivating tenant from his sub-tenant provided the
applicant was a member of the Armed- Forces-ss. 4-AA(2) and
4-AA(3). On receipt of any application, under ss.
3(4), 4(i), 4(5), 4-A(1), 4-A(2), 4- AA(2) and 4-AA(3), the
Revenue Divisional Officer is required to hold a summary
enquiry into the matter and pass necessary orders after giving
a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the tenant to
make their representations. Section 4-B empowers the Revenue
Divisional Officer in the case of any tenancy to impose a
penalty on the landlord or the cultivating tenant for his refusal
to sign or failure to lodge a lease deed in accordance with its
provisions. Section 6 provides that no Civil Court shall, except
to the extent specified in s. 3(3), have jurisdiction in respect of
any matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered
by or under the Act to determine, or shall grant an injunction
in respect of any action taken or to be taken under such
power. Section 6-A requires the Civil Court to transfer to the
Revenue Divisional Officer any suit for possession or
injunction in relation to any land pending before it, if it is
satisfied that the defendant is a cultivating tenant. We have
already noticed s. 6-B, which confers powers of revision on the
High Court. Section 7 gives the State Government the power to
make rules. The Act gives generous protection to cultivating
tenants from eviction, and severely restricts the right of
landlords to resume possession, of their land from their
cultivating tenants. In case of disputes between the landlord
and the cultivating tenant, the Revenue Divisional Officer is
authorised to entertain and decide applications by the landlord68/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
for eviction and resumption of posses-sion and by the
cultivating tenant for restoration of possession and to impose
penalties on the landlord or the tenant for infraction of s. 4-B.
To attract the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional officer,
there must be a dispute between a landlord and cultivating
tenant. The existence of the relation of landlord and cultivating
tenant between the contending parties is the essential condition
for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Revenue Divisional
Officer in all proceedings under the Act. The Tribunal can
exercise its jurisdiction under the Act only if such relationship
exists. If the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is challenged, it must
enquire into the existence of the preliminary fact and decide if
it has jurisdiction. But its decision on the existence of this
preliminary fact is not final; such a decision is subject to
review by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under s.
6-B. The enquiry by the Tribunal is summary, there is no
provision for appeal from its decision, and the legislature
could not have intended that its decision on this preliminary
fact involving a question of title would be final and not subject
to the overriding powers of revision by the High Court. In the
present case, the Tribunal found that the respondent was not
the cultivating tenant of the appellant, and on such finding
declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by s. 3(3) to
determine the correct amount of rent due by the respondent to
the appellant. The High Court had power to enquire into the
correctness of this decision, and on finding that the tenancy
existed and the Tribunal had erroneously refused to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in it by s. 3(3), the High Court could set
aside the decision under .sub-s. (b) of s. 115 of the Code read
with s. 6-B of the Act. On a review of the entire oral and
documentary evidence, the High ‘Court found that the69/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
respondent was the cultivating tenant of the appellant. It is not
shown that this finding is erroneous. We see no reason for
interfering with the decision of the High Court.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
95. In the present case, it is the specific case of the landlord that it is
only the tenant, who is the cultivating tenant under the landlord and sub-letting,
if any, on the basis of the provisions of the Act, can only be as a sub-tenant
without any transfer of leasehold rights and there cannot be absolute and
complete transfer of the rights of the tenant to the sub-tenants by means of any
registered made over document. In fact, the recitals in the lease deed entered
into with Kumar Nair by Ramasamy Chettiar clearly shows that if the tenant
fails to cultivate the lands and pay the lease rental to the landlord, the landlord
reserved his right to lease the lands to any other person of his choice. However,
such a choice is not left with the tenant, though sub-tenancy without releasing
the leasehold rights is provided to the cultivating tenant. Therefore, though the
Act provides for sub-tenancy, it could only be under the umbrella of the tenant
and if the sub-tenants are to be deemed as cultivating tenants, then there should
be a severance of relationship of his lessor as a tenant with the landlord. In the
present case, there is no material to show that there has been severance of
landlord and cultivating tenant relationship between the landlord and the tenant
and such being the case, the tenant is not clothed with any right to transfer his
70/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
leasehold rights over to the sub-tenants, that too by receiving a sum in full quit,
as the said lands are not the lands of the tenant, but that of the landlord and it is
only the landlord, who is entitled to decide his relationship with the person,
who is to be leased out the land and the tenant, as a lease holder, has no right to
part away with his rights to another person for any monetary consideration,
which is clear from the provisions of the Act.
96. Further, the aforesaid decision would also reveal that only when
there is a relationship of landlord and tenant, could the same be the subject
before the Revenue Divisional Officer to determine whether the said tenant is a
cultivating tenant. However, in the case on hand, there is no relationship
between the landlord and the sub-tenant and if the tenant had sub-leased the
lands to the sub-tenant for monetary consideration, without severance of
tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant, the sub-tenant cannot
step into the shoes of the tenant to claim that he is a cultivating tenant. Further,
the tenant, being the registered cultivating tenant, cannot totally transfer his
leasehold rights to the sub-tenant and the alienation by way of the assignment
deed cannot continue in view of Section 2 (aa)(ii)(c) & (d) of the Act. This
material aspect has been lost sight of by the authority while conferring the sub-
tenant with the status of cultivating tenant.
71/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
97. Further, all these years, the landlord had been seeking eviction of the
tenant by filing petitions and has not sought for eviction against the sub-tenant,
as the sub-tenant had impleaded himself in the eviction petitions, which were
allowed by the authority and affirmed by this Court only for the purpose of
safeguarding the interests of the sub-tenant at a later point of time. The said
impleadment cannot be construed to mean that this Court has accepted the sub-
tenancy and approved the made-over document with the tenant relinquishing
his tenancy rights to the sub-tenant for monetary consideration.
98. In the aforesaid circumstances, the authority, who had granted the
status of cultivating tenant to the sub-tenants and the authority, who had
dismissed the eviction petitions, have grossly erred in properly applying the
provisions of the law to the present case and had erroneously conferred the
status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenants, which is grossly illegal. Further,
the authority dealing with the eviction petitions has not properly appreciated the
interim order passed by this Court in CRP (MD) Nos.1130 and 1131/2016 and
had merely held that the direction to the sub-tenant to pay the interim amount
would amount to acceptance of his sub-tenancy and approving his status as a
cultivating tenant. Such a finding rendered by the authority is wholly
misconceived, illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, the same
requires to be interfered with.
72/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
99. Coming to the issue raised in the second appeals, the second appeals
have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-
i) Whether the present suit for injunction would lie
when admittedly proceedings for eviction have been
instituted before the Revenue Court against the original
defendants 1 and 2 in which proceedings the 3rd
defendant had also impleaded himself and the same is
still pending.
ii) Whether a person in settled possession of the suit
property is not entitled to protection against
dispossession except in the manner known to law.
iii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate
court is vitiated by perversity because there is complete
absence of material in support of the prayer for
injunction against the 3rd defendant and is not the
physical possession of the plaintiff condition precedent
for grant of such relief.
100. Before adverting to the questions of law raised above, at the risk of
repetition, it is to be stated that the suit was filed by the landlord seeking
73/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
permanent injunction against the sub-tenant, his agents and men from entering
into the lands belonging to the landlord and also for a permanent injunction as
against the cultivating tenant, viz., the tenant, restraining them from transferring
the tenancy rights to any person, including the sub-tenant. The main ground
taken by the landlord is that the oral lease was only with the tenant and the
landlord had not given any consent for the tenant to enter into sub-lease with a
sub-tenant by parting with his tenancy rights. The landlord had also claimed
that his knowledge about the sub-tenancy was only in the year June, 2001 and
not before, though it is the case of the tenants and the sub-tenants that the sub-
tenancy was created by the tenants with one Akkini Ambalam, the father of the
present sub-tenants during the year 1996. In the backdrop of the aforesaid
factual position, the questions of law, which have been raised requires
determination at the hands of this Court.
101. To answer the questions of law, which have been formulated, it is
trite to refer to the decision in Ramachandra Sastrigal – Vs – Kuppasamy
Vanniar (1961 (1) MLJ 355), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, while
dealing with the scope of Section 6-A of Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 had
expressed the view that in a simple suit for an injunction laid in a Civil Court
for restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession, the
defendant, even if he were to be a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of
74/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
the Act, cannot gain anything by merely having the forum of adjudication being
shifted from the Civil Court to the Revenue Court as it is obvious that a
Revenue Court cannot grant any injunction. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the suit filed by the landlord for injunction before the civil court is not
maintainable, merely because petitions for evictions are pending. In such a
backdrop, the questions of law that have been raised requires to be answered.
102. Insofar as the first question of law is concerned, normally a suit for
injunction shall not be entertained when proceedings for eviction is instituted
before the Revenue Court against the tenants/original defendants 1 and 2, as the
same, if permitted, would be law sans logic. But, in the present case, the
tenants, who were having the leasehold rights on the basis of an oral agreement,
had parted away with their leasehold rights to the sub-tenant, which is alleged
to be collusive and one not covered u/s 2 of the Act, as held above, and in such
a case, the physical possession of the sub-tenant on the basis of the transfer of
leasehold rights in his favour by the tenant is grossly impermissible and the
sub-tenancy having not been recognised by the landlord, the injunction sought
for against the sub-tenant cannot be said to be erroneous. Further, as held by
the appellate court, the transfer of leasehold rights is complete and it is not as
assignment as inferred by the trial court and such transfer of leasehold rights is
totally barred under the Act, and in such a backdrop, the injunction sought for
75/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
cannot be said to be erroneous merely because eviction proceedings are
pending.
103. One other crucial aspect, which requires to be mentioned here is
that the suit was filed in the year 2001 by the landlord seeking permanent
injunction as against the sub-tenant, his men and agents from entering into the
lands of the landlord and also for a permanent injunction as against the tenants,
who are the cultivating tenants, from transferring their tenancy rights to any
person, including the sub-tenant. The main reason for the landlord seeking the
relief against the tenants for permanent injunction stems from the admission of
the landlord that the tenants are cultivating tenants and they are barred u/s 2
(aa)(ii) (d) of the Act from entering into sub-lease without severing their lease
with the landlord. It is to be pointed out that nowhere the tenants have claimed
that they have severed their relationship of cultivating tenants with the
landlord.
104. It is only in this backdrop, that permanent injunction has been
sought against both the tenants and the sub-tenants. The suits, though were
dismissed, the appeals ended in favour of the landlord against which second
appeals have been filed. However, as already discussed above, interim
suspension was granted in the second appeal to safeguard the interests of both
76/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
the landlord and the tenants/sub-tenants.
105. Inspite of the safety granted by this Court to both the sides by
granting an order of suspension, unmindful of the said direction, the authority
under the Tenancy Act scuttled the whole applecart by granting the status of
cultivating tenant to the sub-tenant without proper advertence to Section 2 (aa)
(ii)(c) and (d) of the Act. When the matter was sub judice before this Court in
the second appeal, the authority ought to have awaited the outcome of the
second appeals, as the interim order in the second appeals had safeguarded the
rights of both the landlord and the sub-tenants. However, as discussed above,
for reasons of its own, the authority had granted the status of cultivating tenant
to the sub-tenants, which has caused irreparable hardship and prejudice to the
landlord. The grant of status of cultivating tenant on the sub-tenant has an
intricate nexus with the eviction proceedings in view of the provisions of the
Act as it directly affects the eviction proceedings, moreso, in view of the
impleadment of the sub-tenant in the eviction proceedings, which was done
only to safeguard the interests of the sub-tenant, but that cannot give a premium
to the authority to sub-serve the interests of the landlord by granting the status
of cultivating tenants on the sub-tenant against the mandate of the Act.
106. Further, it is to be pointed out that the sub-tenants could be not be
77/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
held to be trespassers to claim that their eviction should be in the manner
known to law. They are holding the lands in possession on behalf of the
tenants, though the tenants have transferred the leasehold rights in its entirety,
which is without the consent of the landlord and, therefore, the said act, being
against the written lease agreement of the year 1968 between Ramaswamy
Chettiar and Kumar Nair, which lease deed has been the basis for the oral
agreement between the legal heirs of Ramaswamy Chettiar and Kumar Nair, the
injunction prayed for by the landlord against the tenant and the sub-tenants
pending the eviction cannot be held to be not maintainable, as the continued
possession without injunction would cause irreparable loss and damage to the
landlord moreso, when the tenant had transferred his leasehold rights to the
sub-tenant that too without paying the lease rental since 1984. The only reason
for such a transfer to the sub-tenant is to escape from the payment of lease
rental and the made-over deed having no clause relating to the pending lease
rental payable to the landlord, the said registered made-over deed could only be
held to be a collusive deed between the tenants and the sub-tenants. If
injunction as sought for is not granted, it would defeat the rights of the landlord
and would put the landlord to face multiplicity of litigations at the hands of
both the tenants and the sub-tenants, as is evident from the manner in which the
tenants and the sub-tenants have been evading payment of lease rental to the
landlord for more than three decades and it was paid only at the intervention of
78/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
this Court.
107. Insofar as the second question of law is concerned, the possession
of the sub-tenant is on the basis of the made-over deed, which, by itself is a
document, which does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the Act as
the registered cultivating tenant has no right to transfer his leasehold rights in
entirety to the sub-tenant without the consent of the landlord. It is the more
clear from Section 2 (aa)(ii)(c) and (d) that the sub-tenant could be held to be a
cultivating tenant only when the lessor of the sub-tenant ceases to be a tenant
under the landlord. However, in the present case, there is no cessation of
relationship between the landlord and the tenant and no consent has been
obtained for the purpose of creating the sub-tenancy by completely alienating
the leasehold rights. Such being the case, the possession, by legal fiction, could
only be held to be with the tenant and the permissive occupation, if any, of the
sub-tenants for the purpose of cultivation based on the alleged made-over
document, would not grant any leasehold rights to the sub-tenants to claim
settled possession of the sub-tenants over the suit property. In the light of the
fact that the made-over deed itself is for monetary consideration to the tenants
and not to the landlord, it reflects outright alienation of the leasehold right,
which is against the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the alienation is not
permissible u/s 2 (aa)(ii)(d) of the Act and, therefore, the possession of the suit
79/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
property by the sub-tenants cannot be said to be permissible and the injunction
sought for by the landlord against the tenants and sub-tenants cannot be said to
be bad.
108. Insofar as the third question of law is concerned, the registered
made-over deed, not being one, which is in consonance with Section 2 (aa)(ii)
(c) and (d) of the Act, the said registered made-over deed cannot be said to be a
valid document. In such a backdrop, the possession of the tenants over the
lands could only be in terms with the recitals in the unregistered lease deed of
the year 1968, entered into between Ramaswamy Chettiar and Kumar Nair and
the legal heirs of Ramaswamy Chettiar and Kumar Nair would be bound by the
recitals therein, even with regard to the lease rentals and any claim of oral
reduction, unless proved through proper materials by the tenants, cannot form
the basis of acceptance that the legal heirs of Ramaswamy Chettiar have
accepted a lesser lease rental after a substantial period of time, which is beyond
the comprehension of this Court and in view of the admitted position that the
lease rentals have not been paid since 1984 by the legal heirs of Kumar Nair,
the injunction sought for by the landlord cannot be said to be misconceived nor
could it be said that it is in the absence of any material to support the plea of
injunction, as the physical possession of the tenant is sought to be collusively
done away with by means of an invalid made over deed to the detriment of the
80/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
landlord and without his consent and, therefore, the possession of the tenant
could be held to be only at the instance of the landlord for the purpose of
cultivation and not otherwise and, hence, the order of the lower appellate court
does not suffer from any perversity.
109. Though this Court could have very well refrained from answering
the above questions in the second appeal, as this Court has held that the made-
over deed cannot form the basis for the sub-tenant to be treated as a cultivating
tenant, as it is against the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the eviction
sought for has to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the landlord, but
for the fact that questions of law have been framed, this Court is bound to
answer the same and only for the said purpose, this Court had embarked on
answering the questions of law, which are answered in favour of the landlord
and against the tenants/sub-tenants.
110. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders passed by the authority
rejecting the plea for eviction is erroneous and, accordingly, the same is set
aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed. The authority is directed to
take necessary action for evicting sub-tenants from the lands of the landlord and
hand over possession of the lands to the landlord within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequent to the order passed
81/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
in the civil revision petitions, the second appeal stands dismissed for the
reasons aforesaid. Insofar as realisation of the lease rental, if any, pending with
the tenant and sub-tenant, it is open to the landlord to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law for realising the dues, if any. There shall be no order as to
cost.
28.08.2025
Index : Yes/No
GLN
To
1. Addl. Sub Judge
Madurai.
2. District Munsif
Madurai Taluk, Madurai.
3. The Authority
Revenue Court
Madurai.
82/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI,
J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
C.R.P. (MD) NOS. 112 TO 122
& 124 TO 133 OF 2022
AND
S.A. NOS. 831 & 832 OF 2014
83/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
Pronounced on
28.08.2025
84/84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:43:57 pm )
[ad_1]
Source link