Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.N. Ray, C.J., Raja Jaswant Singh and M. Hameedullah Beg JUDGMENT
M. Hameedullah Beg, J.
1. This appeal by special leave raises quite a simple question of interpretation of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which, we think, have been ignored entirely by the Madras High Court in the judgment under appeal.
1 A. The undisputed facts are: one Annamalai Pillai died leaving behind two widows, namely, Annamalai Ammal and Veerayee. That last mentioned lady instituted a suit No. 482 of 1927 in the Court of the District Munsif, Periyakulam, for partitioning the properties of the deceased, impleading the other widow and a nephew of the deceased Annamlai Pillai as defendants. That suit ended in a compromise dated 6th July, 1935. Under the terms of the compromise decree, some land was given to Annamlai Ammal for enjoyment during her life time, and, therefore, absolutely to the sons of the second defendant of suit No. 482 of 1927. Annamalai Ammal died on 26th July, 1958. She had, however, during her life time, inducted a tenant, G. Ponniah Thevar, the appellant before us by means of a lease dated 27th March, 1961. After the death of Annamalai Ammal, the plaintiffs-respondents, as remainder-men, sued to evict the appellant, the cultivating tenant, on the ground that his tenancy rights did not enure beyond the life time of Annamalai Ammal.
2. The suit for eviction, decree by the District Court and the High Court, is now before us. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Act conferring protection upon cultivating tenants govern the rights of the appellant. We are, therefore, not concerned with any rights under any general or personal law which may enable the remainder-men to evict a tenant of a life estate holder. The terms of the statutory protection apply clearly to all tenancies governed by the Act irrespective of the nature of rights of the person who leased the land so long as the lessor was entitled to create a tenancy. It is not disputed before us that Annamalai Ammal was entitled to create a tenancy. The only question, on which there is a dispute, is whether a tenancy created by her could legally extend beyond her life.
The Madras High Court had, apparently, followed certain decisions of that Court which had applied the principle that a life estate holder cannot create a tenancy which could last beyond the life of a life- estate holder. The view taken by the Madras High Court and applied to statutory tenancies runs counter not only to the principles underlying creation of statutory tenancy rights in agricultural land, throughout the length and breadth of the country, but, it seems to us to be obviously in conflict with the particular statutory protection conferred upon cultivating tenants in the State of Madras. These enactments are really meant for the purposes proclaimed by them. The obvious effect of such statutory provisions cannot be taken away or whittled down by forensic sophistry. Courts should not allow themselves to become tools, for defeating clearly expressed statutory intentions.<mpara>
3. Section 2(aa) of the Act lays down:
2(aa) 'cultivating tenant' in re........