This second appeal has been placed before a Bench because there are conflicting decisions of Judges sitting alone with regard to the interpretation of S. 20, Cl. (5) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929. S. 20 opens with these words:

No suit for eviction of a customary Verumpattamdar, Kuzhikanamdar or kanamdar shall lie at the instance of his landlord except on the following grounds:

There are six clauses in which the grounds are set out and Cl. (5) is in these terms:

that the period of the verumpattam, kanam or kuzhikanam, as the case may be, has expired and there has been no renewal and the landlord requires the holding bona fide for his own cultivation or for that of any member of his family or tarwad or tavazhi who has a proprietary and beneficial interest therein.

The question which falls for decision is whether the words requires the holding bona fide mean that the jenmi may, in the circumstances stated at the beginning of the clause, resume occupation if there is a genuine intention to cultivate or whether he must show a real need to do so.

In Raman Nayar v. Kesavan Embrandiri (S.A. No. 42 of 1939), an unreported case, Venkataramana Rao, J. held that a mere desire on the part of the landlord to have the land for his own cultivation, even if bona fide , is not enough. The learned Judge said that in coming to a conclusion on the question of the landlords need being bona fide , the Court should in each case consider whether the circumstances are such that the land must be restored to the landlord for his own cultivation or cultivation by any member of the family or tarwad, the test being the need of the landlord. In forming this opinion the learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rakhabchand Doogar v. J.R. DCruz (26 C.W.N. 499). That was a case under the Calcutta Rent Act, S. 11 of which prohibited a landlord from recovering possession from a tenant so long as the tenant paid the rent to the full extent allowable by the Act and performed the conditions of the tenancy. The section incorporated a proviso giving the landlord the right to resume possession if the premises were required by him bona fide for purposes of building or re-building or for his own occupation or the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises were held. A landlord wished to get possession of the premises from his tenant. The evidence disclosed that the landlord had let out the premises in which he was living to tenants and that the reason which he gave for requiring possession of the premises in suit, namely, his wifes health, was not the real reason. We do not regard that decision as being really applicable. The Calcutta Rent Act was a measure designed to prevent profiteering in houses, the war of 1914-18 having resulted in a shortage of residential accommodation. The measure was merely intended to meet a position which was of a temporary nature. It is true that the Malabar Tenancy Act has the object of creating permanent tenancies but the circumstances are in no way analogous and we are unable to read the Malabar Tenancy Act in the same way as the Calcutta Rent Act was read in the case just referred to.

The same question arose in this Court in the case, Eeravi Achuthan v. Poochakkandi Panakkat Katheeja Bi (S.A. No. 538 of 1939) which was decided by King, J. This judgment is also unreported. King, J. in discussing the meaning to be attached to bona fide said:

The expression bona fide cannot apply to a state of circumstances but only to the statements or intentions or actions of a human being. All therefore that is necessary in my opinion is for the Court to decide whether, when the landlord demands or asks for or sues for any land on the ground that he wishes to cultivate it himself, his statement that he wishes to cultivate it himself is a statement made bona fide .

We consider that this interpretation is the correct one. If the Court is convinced that the jenmi has really the intention of cultivating the land he is entitled to be put into possession of it. The fact that he has sufficient land under cultivation elsewhere to provide for the needs of himself and his family matters not. It is his land and if he really wants to cultivate it, he is entitled to regain possession when the kanam has expired and there has been no renewal.

In the present case both the Courts below have held that the jenmi had the bona fide intention of cultivating the land. That being so, the decree which has been granted to him cannot in our opinion be disturbed and the appeal will have to be dismissed with costs.