High Court Order Upholding Eviction Is Set Aside; Tenants' Protection Under Tamil Nadu Act Reinforced

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by legal heirs of a deceased cultivator challenging the Madras High Court’s restoration of a decree directing eviction on grounds of damage to leased agricultural land. The appeals arose from a series of suits and proceedings concerning cultivation, alleged felling of trees, digging of pits and other alterations to land in Pichanoor, Coimbatore, and contested application of Section 3(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order and the Revenue Court’s eviction order, and restored protection to the cultivating tenants. The Court held that eviction under the Act required “cogent, credible and reliable evidence” of acts constituting destruction or injury to the land, and found that the Revenue Court had acted on the Court Commissioner’s report in a mechanical manner while the High Court affirmed that order in a “slipshod manner.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court directed that the respondents shall not interfere with the appellants’ possession “save and except in accordance with law.”

Background The dispute began when members of a family claiming ownership of a six-acre holding filed Original Suit No. 491/1994 seeking relief against the occupants for cutting trees, digging pits and causing other damage; that suit was allowed by the trial court. The appellants, who were tenants and cultivators since the 1950s, succeeded on first appeal which set aside the trial decree. The respondents then secured a Second Appeal in the High Court which restored the trial court decree. Separately, relying on the court decree and the Commissioner’s report, the respondents filed an Original Petition under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act before the Revenue Court seeking eviction; the Revenue Court allowed the petition, recording that “the respondent has dug up the pits and cut down the trees and branches is proved,” and directed eviction and execution by the Revenue Inspector.

The tenants challenged the Revenue Court order by way of civil revision before the High Court and, ultimately, by Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analysed Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 1955, which excepts from protection a tenant “who has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land.” The Court found the material on record insufficient to establish such destructive or injurious conduct: pruning or routine acts of cultivation did not satisfy the high threshold required for eviction. The Court referred to authority emphasising beneficent construction of protective legislation and held that on the facts the Revenue Court had relied mechanically on the Commissioner’s report while the High Court failed to exercise proper scrutiny under its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court and Revenue Court orders, and granted liberty only to the parties to act in accordance with law going forward; connected appeals were disposed of as well.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1134; Civil Appeal Nos. 7464-7466 & 7467-7469 of 2011 Case Title: GOVINDAPPA GOUNDER @ GOVINDASAMY (DEAD) …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS K. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. T.V. George, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Advocate (for Respondent No.1); Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate (for Respondent No.4)