Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These provisions, viz., Sections 50-A, 52 and 73 which were introduced by the 1969 Amendment Act were relied on by the appellant for the purpose of showing that the appellant would be entitled to use the holding and to cut trees and the maximum arrears of rent could be claimed for a period of three years and not more.

Counsel for the appellant next contended that the trial Court was in error in finding that the holding of the appel- lant is a plantation in the context of section 3(1) (viii) of the 1964 Act. The contention on behalf of the appellant was that assuming that the trial Court was right in its conclusion as regards the area of 279.86 acres which accord- ing to the respondent was the extent of coffee plantation .on the date of the lease, in respect of the remaining extent of land the appellant was entitled to fixity of tenure in view of the proviso to clause 3(1)(viii) of the 1964 Act.

This provision according to the appellant establishes that it applies to decree passed before the commencement of Act 1 of 1964 and also pursuant to which eviction has not been effected.

In the present case, the decree was passed by the trial Court as well as by the High Court after the 1964 Act came into existence. The decree was passed in accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Act but before the amendment in 1969. The appellant claimed benefit of the proviso to section 3 (1) (vii)of the Act. The benefit claimed is fixity of ten- ure. The proviso as it stood when the 1964 Act came into operation was that nothing in clauses (i) to (vii) of sec- tion 3 (1) of the Act "shall affect the rights of persons who are entitled to the fixity of tenure immediately before 21 January 1961 under any law then in force". The change Substituted by the 1969 Amendment Act is that nothing in clauses (i) to (vii) of section 3(1) of the Act "shall apply in the case of persons who were entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before 21 January 1961 under any law then in force or persons claiming under such persons". The prevail- ing law on 21 January 1961 was the Malabar Tenancy Act. If, therefore, the appellant did not or could not have fixity of tenure on 21 January 1961 under the Malabar Tenancy Act he would not have any claim to the benefit of fixity of tenure under the 1964 Act or even under the 1964 Act as amended in 1969. Under section 23 of the Malabar Tenancy Act a Verum- pattom tenant would be liable to be evicted from his holding at the instance of his landlord if 'he intentionally commit- ted acts of waste sufficient to impair materially the value or utility of the holding for the, purpose for which it was let to him or that he committed default in the pay- ment of stipulated rent for more than 3 months after its due date, or allowed strangers to trespass upon the holding. In the present case,. the appellant has been found to be a habitual defaulter since 1952 in the payment of rent fixed under the lease of 1950 under which the appellant was let into possession of the estate. Further the appellant has been found to be guilty of willful acts of waste before and after the institution of the suit. The appellant has also been found to have denuded the entire tree growth in more than one half of the area of the estate. The appellant has been found to have destroyed more than one half of the coffee planted area that had been leased to him.It was found that the remaining part of the coffee plantation as a result of the acts of the appellant is in utterly neglected condition.

The facts circumstances of the present case as found by the courts establish that the appellant had no fixity of tenure on 21 January 1961 warranting grant of any benefit, remedy or right against eviction. In fact, this claim was also canvassed by the appellant and found against him by the court.

The respondent in the present case is a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and, is, therefore, a Government company under the Indian Companies Act. The appellant is disentitled to claim fixity of tenure under section 13 of the Act inasmuch as under the 1964 Act and under amendment in 1969 leases of lands owned by the Government owned Companies are by section 3(1) (i) of the 1,964 Act specifically exempted from the provisions of Chap- ter II of the Act. Section 13 which is in Chapter 1I cannot therefore, be invoked by the appellant. The right to fixity of tenure is denied to a tenant in respect of a holding owned by or belonging to a Government controlled CompanY. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to claim fixity of tenure under the 1964 Act as amended. The Beenachi Estate in the present case does not come within the definition of "plantation" in section 2(44) of the 1964 Act as amended in 1969 because the extent of coffee cultivated area has been found by the court to have dwindled to a little over 110 acres in extent out of the total extent of a little over 550 acres. Further, tapioca has been grown by the Receiver in the areas other than the coffee planted area. Therefore, the Estate ceased to be a property princi- pally planted with coffee even before 1 January 1970 when the 1969 Amendment Act came into force. Under the lease the coffee planted area was 279.86 acres and the remaining extent of 271 acres was also intended to be extended area to be planted with coffee. The courts have found that instead of coffee plantation the appellant deliberately committed waste during the progress of litigation in the courts by reducing the extent of coffee plantation to just 168.58 acres. This area dwindled to little over 110 acres before 2 March 1969 when the Receiver was appointed by the High Court. The .large extent of vacant areas within the estate was on account of deliberate devastation of the said area by denudation of tree growth during the pendency of the litiga- tion in the courts.Therefore, it"is obvious that the appellant is dis-entitled to take advantage of his own wrongs so as to claim statutory benefits which are also not available to the appellant. The property by reason of acts of waste, damage, devastation, denudation Ceased to be coffee plantation on 1 January 1970 when the 1969 Amendment came into effect.