Case Note & Summary
The litigation had a long-drawn history involving disputes over agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 169-170 in Village Pichanoor, Taluk Coimbatore South, Tamil Nadu, measuring 6 Acres and 98 Cents. The appellants were the original defendants, claiming to be cultivating tenants since 1955-1960, while the respondents were the original plaintiffs claiming lawful ownership. Earlier, the appellants had filed Original Suit No. 1363/1993 seeking permanent injunction against interference, which was decreed in their favour. Subsequently, the respondents filed Original Suit No. 491/1994 seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants from cutting trees or causing damage or waste, along with damages. The two suits were consolidated, common evidence recorded, and the trial court decreed Original Suit No. 491/1994 in favour of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the trial court decree. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the High Court. Separately, the respondents initiated eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 by filing Original Petition No. 16/2001 before the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli, on the ground that the tenant had damaged the land by felling trees, digging pits, and constructing huts and a water tank. The Revenue Court, relying on the Commissioner's report from the civil suit, passed an order dated 21.11.2008 directing eviction. The appellants filed Civil Revision Petition No. 4052/2008 before the High Court. The High Court heard the second appeal and the revision together and by common judgment dated 18.11.2009 allowed the second appeal, restored the trial court decree, and upheld the eviction order. Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the deceased original defendant filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether there was cogent material or evidence to show that the appellants had indulged in cutting trees or digging land causing substantial damage so as to fall within Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. Section 3(2)(b) provides an exception to the general protection against eviction: a tenant who has done any act or been guilty of negligence destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop thereon, or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land, loses protection. The Supreme Court examined Section 3 and the Revenue Court's findings. The Revenue Court had relied on the Commissioner's report which mentioned cutting of trees and branches and digging of pits. The High Court had reproduced the civil court's finding that the nature of the property had been altered by cutting branches, digging pits, putting up huts, and constructing a water tank, and held that the Revenue Court had rightly exercised jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that there was nothing on record to indicate that the appellants were negligent or had caused damage to the suit land or crops. It noted that the appellants had been cultivating the land for decades and would be interested in protecting it. Even assuming trees were pruned, that by itself would not bring the case within Section 3(2)(b). The Court observed that the Revenue Court mechanically relied on the Commissioner's report and the High Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 affirmed the order in a very slipshod manner. The Court also referred to Section 6-B of the Act, 1955 which makes the Revenue Divisional Officer a court subordinate to the High Court for revision. In view of the absence of evidence of any destructive or injurious act, the Supreme Court concluded that the eviction order was unsustainable. The connected appeals filed by another branch of the family concerning ownership of the suit property were left to be decided in Original Suit No. 302/2009 on its own merits. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the eviction order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Eviction of Cultivating Tenants - Grounds for Eviction Under Section 3(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - A cultivating tenant is liable to be evicted only if he has done any act or been guilty of negligence destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land - The Revenue Court relied on the Commissioner's report to hold that the tenant cut trees, dug pits, constructed huts and a water tank, but the Supreme Court found no cogent evidence of negligence or substantial damage; mere pruning of trees does not attract Section 3(2)(b) - Held that the eviction order was unsustainable and set aside (Paras 14-20). B) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 6-B of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - The Revenue Divisional Officer is deemed a court subordinate to the High Court for revision - The High Court was required to examine whether the eviction order was based on evidence; it instead affirmed the Revenue Court's order in a slipshod manner without noticing the lack of material - Held that mechanical affirmation of an eviction order based solely on a Commissioner's report vitiates the decision (Paras 18-20). C) Evidence Law - Commissioner's Report - Evidentiary Value in Tenancy Eviction - A Commissioner's report recording alteration of property like cutting branches, digging pits, putting up huts and constructing a water tank cannot by itself prove that a tenant committed acts destructive or injurious to the land - The report must be supported by credible evidence of negligence or damage; pruning trees, even if assumed, does not amount to a destructive act - Held that eviction cannot be founded merely on the Commissioner's report without further proof of injury (Paras 17-20). D) Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Existence of Relationship for Proceedings Under Act 1955 - The High Court found landlord-tenant relationship based on a prior lease to a third party and subsequent conduct including undertaking to attorn tenancy - The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding but observed that the connected appeals concerning ownership of suit property were to be decided separately in Original Suit No. 302/2009 - Held that present appeals confined to validity of eviction order which failed on merits (Paras 13, 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was cogent material or evidence to indicate that the appellants had indulged in cutting of trees or digging up land causing substantial damage so as to bring the case within Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955; and whether the High Court properly exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC read with Section 6-B of the Act in affirming the eviction order.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; eviction order passed by Revenue Court and affirmed by High Court set aside; Supreme Court held that no evidence established any destructive or injurious act by tenant under Section 3(2)(b) of Act 1955, and that mere tree pruning did not attract the provision. Connected appeals concerning ownership left to be decided in Original Suit No. 302/2009.
Law Points
- No eviction under Section 3(2)(b) without proof of destructive or injurious act or negligence
- Mere pruning of trees does not amount to destructive or injurious act
- Commissioner's report alone cannot establish ground for eviction
- High Court revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC read with Section 6-B must involve proper application of mind
- Cultivating tenants protected from eviction except on specified grounds
