JOB ALIAS KOCHUKUTTY Vs. ABRAHAM THARAKAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JOB ALIAS KOCHUKUTTY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The controversy in this petition centres round S.8 of the Kerala Prevention of Eviction Act, 1966. The long title of the Act shows that the enactment is intended "to provide for the prevention of eviction of cultivating tenants, holders of kudiyiruppus and kudikidappukars from their holdings, kudiyiruppus or kudikidappus, as the case may be, in the State of Kerala and for the restoration in certain cases of the possession thereof and for matters connected therewith".
(2.) S.8 of the Act deals with the stay of suits or other proceedings for eviction. It reads as follows:
"Where, in any suit or other proceeding for the eviction of a cultivating tenant, a holder of a kudiyiruppu or a kudikidappukaran, from his holding, kudiyiruppu or kudikidappu, as the case may be, whether pending at the commencement of this Act or instituted after such commencement, the cultivating tenant, or the holder of a kudiyiruppu or the kudikidappukaran, makes a representation to the court in which such suit or other proceeding is pending or instituted that no record of rights in respect of the holding or register of kudikidappukars in respect of the village in which the kudikidappu is situate, as the case may be, has been prepared, the court shall not proceed with the suit or proceeding until the record of rights in respect of the holding or the register of kudikidappukars, as the case may be, is prepared and made available to it and the court shall also by order direct the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the holding or the kudikidappu is situate to prepare a record of rights in respect of the holding, or, as the case may be, a register of kudikidappukars and to file the same in court, and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall cause the same to be prepared in the manner prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Kerala Act I of 1964)."
(3.) The order from which this petition arises referred to S.8 and said: "From a reading of the section it is clear that in order that the provisions of the section are to be applicable there should be the case of an admitted tenancy, kudikidappu or kudiyiruppu. In this case the plaintiff does not admit that the defendant is either a cultivating tenant, kudiyiruppukaran or kudikidappukaran Therefore so long as the fact whether the defendant petitioner is a kudikidappukaran, kudiyiruppukaran or a cultivating tenant is not determined, the suit cannot be stayed under S.8 of Act 12 of 1966. The petition is therefore dismissed.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.