SRI AMURUVI PERUMAL DEVASTHANAM Vs. K R SABAPATHI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS in an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 49 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayarvaram. The plaintiff Sri Amuruvi perumal Devastanam at Teralandur filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2174411-4, being arrears of lease payable by the defendants. The learned Subordinate judge, Mayavaram, decreed the suit for Rs. 7422. Now the appeal is filed for the disallowed portion of the claim by the appellant.

(2.) THE facts in this case are the following : the plaintiff-devastanam possesses the properties described in schedules A to A-2 to the plaint. At the time of the suit the plaintiff was represented by its trustee Sri Raghavan, who was validly appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department. The devastanam as usual leased the suit lands in open auction held on 26-61952 as per the table Endowments Act for three faslis 1362, 1363 and 1364 (1952), 1953 and 1954) subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the lease auction notice. In the auction held on 26-6-1952 in the presence of the Inspector by the Devastanam authorities, the 2nd defendant was the highest bidder for 2536 kalams of paddy and 323 bundles of straw as annual rental for the said lands. The said bid was accepted by the plaintiff Devastanam and was duly confirmed by the commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras. Accordingly, a lease was executed on 31-8-1952 by the plaintiff devastanam, which was then represented by the managing trustee N. Subramania Pillai, and the defendants. Though the 2nd defendant was the highest bidder the first defendant also joined the 2nd defendant in executing the lease deed and has also given his properties as security for the due performance of the conditions of the lese. The main terms and conditions of the lease are (a) that the defendants should deliver unconditionally 2536 kalams of paddy and 323 bundles of straw as rent due for each of the faslis 1362, 1363 and 1364 (b) that the defendants should not under any circumstances claim any remission in the rent due and payable to Devastanam authorities, and (c)that the defendants also have no right or claim to remission on behalf of sub-tenants under their responsibility. The plaintiff further states, that at the time when the Devastanam properties were leased in open auction on 26-6-1952, the defendants were also aware of the agrarian conditions prevailing in the Tanjore district and the contemplation of the government to introduce a legislation in regard to the quantum of the rent payable by the tenants to their landlords. AS expected the Governor of Madras promulgated Ordinance IV of 1952 called the Tanjore Tenants and Panniyal (Protection) Ordinance 1952, on 23-8-1952. Therefore, on the date of the execution of the lease deed, the defendants were aware of Ordinance IV of 1952. After the execution of the lease deed the defendants committed default in paying the full rent payable to the plaintiff with the result that at the end of the lease there was a large accumulation of arrears of paddy and bundles of straw, which the plaintiff estimates at a sum of Rs. 21,744-11-4. After the expiry of the lease period, the defendants surrendered possession of the demised lands, but neglected to pay the arrears and failed to comply with the terms of the lease deed. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to clear the arrears due and payable by them to the plaintiff-devastanam but they did not accede to the r request with the result that the plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of the said amount from the defendants.

(3.) THE defence set up by the respondents (defendants) was that at the time when they entered into the lease agreement with the plaintiff-devastanam, Ordinance V of 1952 had come into force and the ordinance was subsequently repealed and replaced by a regular Act XIV of 1952 called the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal protection Act 1952, which came into force on 21-12-1952, the result of which was that the tenants were entitled to remain in possession of the lands and get the benefits of the said. Act The defendants were not able to do pannai cultivation nor collect the usual rents from the tenants. On the other hand all the tenants filed applications before the Conciliation Officer for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the said Act; the tenants who were evicted by the defendants applied for restoration of the land and some of the tenants claimed remission on account of adverse season and also wanted division of the produce according to the provisions of the Act. In addition to this the defendants suffered loss on account of the heavy cyclone on 30-1-1952. (1953?) The defendants also stated that whatever amount they had collected from the tenants they had paid to the last pie to the plaintiffdevastanam. They claimed a remission of rent of 221/2 per cent for the year 1952-23 and a 15 per cent reduction of rent for faslis 1363 and 1364. They denied their liability to pay the arrears on account of the passing of the Act XIV of 1952 which prevented them from realising the contractual rent from the tenants.