MISS RUBY JACOBS Vs. A. ANTHONISWAMI UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceeding involves an issue of some interest, but, while I think that it is desirable to lay stress upon one aspect of interpretation of statute law, the case itself admits of a disposal purely on findings of fact. The revision petitioner is the landlady, who sought eviction of the tenant under Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 on two grounds, viz., (1) default in payment of arrears of rent and (2) an unauthorised sub -lease of a part of the : holding. The first ground failed, and it is not now being pressed before me.

(2.) AS regards the second ground, the finding of the Court below is that the alleged sub -lease was not satisfactorily established. But the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, when the point was put to him, did concede that an unauthorised sub -lease per se is not a ground for eviction under Section 3(2) (b) of the Act whatever -might be the case with regard to the other parallel or analogous enactments. This Act does not make an unauthorised sub -lease by a cultivating tenant, a ground for -eviction by the landlord. On the contrary, as is well known, Section 3(2)(b) is confined in its operation to a cultivating tenant who has done

(3.) BUT Srinivasan, J., went further and observed, that, by virtue of such sub -lease the tenant may render himself liable to eviction "under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. "There is no further discussion, and the If learned Judge does not state whether a mere demise as a sub -lease per se would imply, necessarily, that the tenant " has altogether ceased to cultivate the land." Apparently, he was of the view that, since a sub -lease docs imply that the tenant (lessor) parts with possession to the extent of the sub -lease in favour of the sub -tenant, this part of Section 3(2)(b) would be attracted to a situation of that kind.