1968 (4) TMI 92 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a varamdar under Section 2(60) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, has the right to file an application for the determination of fair rent under Section 31 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of 'Varamdar' and 'Fair Rent':
The court examined whether a varamdar, as defined in Section 2(60) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, has the right to file for fair rent determination under Section 31. Section 2(13) defines 'fair rent' as the rent payable by a cultivating tenant under Sections 27 or 33.

2. Judicial Interpretation:
The Subordinate Judge in C.R.Ps. 675 to 678 of 1966 opined that the cultivating tenant has no such right. However, the Land Tribunal in Moovattupuzha conceded the right to the varamdar in the original petitions.

3. Legal Definitions and Interpretations:
The court analyzed various sections:
- Section 2(60) defines varamdar as a person who undertakes cultivation under a varam arrangement.
- Section 31(1) allows a cultivating tenant or landlord to apply for determining fair rent.
- Section 2(8) defines 'cultivating tenant' as a tenant in actual possession and entitled to cultivate the land.
- Section 2(57) includes a person deemed to be a tenant under Sections 8 and 10(iii).

4. Case Law and Precedents:
The court referred to Mohammed Ali v. Ahammed Sait, 1967 Ker LT 485, which discussed the rights of a varamdar, concluding that a varamdar is a cultivating tenant and has rights akin to a tenant under the Act.

5. Lease and Possession:
The court discussed the nature of a lease under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing that a lease involves a transfer of interest and possession. The varam arrangement was scrutinized to determine if it constituted a lease or a mere license.

6. Statutory Interpretation:
The court examined the inclusive nature of the term 'tenant' under Section 2(57), which includes varamdars as deemed tenants under Sections 8 and 10(iii). The term 'includes' was interpreted as a word of enlargement, extending the definition to encompass varamdars.

7. Actual Possession and Holding:
The court addressed the contention that varamdars lack 'actual possession' and that the land they cultivate is not a 'holding' under Section 2(17). However, Section 2(45) defines 'possession' to include occupation by deemed tenants, establishing that varamdars have actual possession for the Act's purposes.

8. Legislative Intent and Context:
The court considered the legislative history and intent, concluding that the benefits conferred on tenants under the Act, including fixity of tenure under Section 13(1), apply to varamdars. The court also noted that various provisions, such as Sections 35, 53, and 73, implicitly recognize the rights of varamdars.

9. Conclusion:
The court held that a varamdar defined in Section 2(60) is a cultivating tenant entitled to file an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 31 of the Act. Consequently, C.R.Ps. 675 to 678 of 1966 were allowed and remanded for disposal on merits. C.R.Ps. 1174 and 1175 of 1966 were dismissed. The original petitions were also dismissed, with directions to the Subordinate Judge of Parur to reinstate and dispose of the appeals on merits.

Orders:
- C.R.Ps. 675 to 678 of 1966: Allowed and remanded for disposal on merits.
- C.R.Ps. 1174 and 1175 of 1966: Dismissed.
- Original Petitions: Dismissed with directions to reinstate and dispose of appeals on merits.
- Costs: No order as to costs in any of the cases.