- (1.) S. 3 (1) and 3 (2) (b) of the T. N. Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (the Act) are as under: "3.Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants.- (1 Subject to the next succeeding sub-sections, no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof, by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise. (2 Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, Ss. (1 shall not apply to a cultivating tenant (B) who has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land. "the appellant-tenants claim protection under Section 3 (1 of the Act. The landlord filed an application for terminating the tenancy on the ground that by not raising two crops on the land the tenant had defeated his right under Section 3 (1 and was liable to be ejected under Section 3 (2 (b) of the Act. The Revenue courts under the Act found as a fact that the raising of one crop only in the double crop land was due to non-availability of water for purposes of irrigation. On that finding, the Revenue courts dismissed the application of the landlord. The High court in a revision came to the conclusion that since a single crop was raised in a double crop land, the value of the land been adversely affected and as such there was injury to the land value. The High court reversed the orders of the Revenue Courts and directed the ejectment of the tenant under Section 3 (2 (b) of the Act.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the findings of the courts below. There was no material before the High Court to the effect that the two crops were not raised on the land due to fault of the tenants. The courts below found as a fact that the second crop could not be raised due to non-availability of water. Even otherwise, we are of the view that not to raise two crops in a double crop land by itself cannot be held to be destructive and injurious to the land within the mischief of Section 3 (2 (b) of the Act. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the orders of the Revenue Courts. There shall be no order as to costs.;