M. Palanichamy vs Muthiah Pillai

Srinivasan, J.—The contention put forward by the tenant, who is the petitioner, is that under the provisions of Section 5 of Tamil Nadu

Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 the tenant is bound to pay or deposit only 1/4th of the total amount of rent due for the years

referred to in the section including what he had paid earlier. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to state a few facts. The tenant is

in arrears for faslis 1391 to 1398. The total rent payable for those years is Rs. 1,26,000 and odd. In an appeal pending in this Court, namely, A.S.

No. 562 of 1987, the tenant was directed to deposit Rs. 21,000 and he has complied with the order. Apart from that, the tenant has also paid a

sum of Rs. 24,500 towards rent for the said years. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,500 has already been paid. According to the order of the Revenue

Court, which is now challenged in this revision petition, the tenant is liable to pay u/s 5 of the said Act, the current rent plus 1/4th of the arrears,

namely, Rs. 1,26,000 and odd minus Rs. 45,500 already paid by the tenant.

But learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that u/s 5 of the Act, the tenant is liable to pay only the current rent plus 1/4th of the total

amount of rent, namely Rs. 1,26,000 and odd which comes to about Rs. 31,500, and odd, and as the tenant had already paid Rs. 45,500 towards

the rent he is not liable to pay any amount at all u/s 5 of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the express language of the section.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act should be read together. Section 4 reads as follows:

Option for payment of arrears of rent: (1) Any cultivating tenant who is in arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the fasli year ending with the

30th day of June, 1989 and for any previous fasli year (hereinafter referred to as the said years) and outstanding on the date of the publication of

this Act shall, within two months from the date of such publication, intimate his option in writing to the competent authority

(1) to pay the current rent and the one-fourth of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part II or

(ii) to pay the current rent and the one third of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part III, of this Act for availing relief under this Act

from the payment of the said arrears of rent.

(2) The option given under Sub-section (1) shall be final.

Section 5(i) reads as follows:

Section 5. Relief for payment of arrears of rent: (i) All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord for the said years and

outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act, shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained

therefore if such cultivating tenant pays to the landlord or deposits in the court or before the competent authority, to the account of the landlord in

the manner specified in Sub-sections (2) and (3).

In Section 4 of the Act, the significant expression is ""arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the fasli year ending with 30th day of June 1989

and for any previous fasli year (here in after referred to as the said years) and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act.

That expression itself shows that the section refers only to the amount due to the landlord on the date of the publication of the Act after giving

credit to the amounts already paid to him. Further, Clause (2) of Sub-section (1) expressly refers to said amount as ""said arrears of rent"". Hence,

the section contemplates only the amount due and payable on the date of publication of the Act. Section 5 of the Act no doubt uses the expression

total amount of arrears of rent"". That expression itself shows that it refers to the amount remaining due after giving credit to the payments already

made. Learned Counsel contends that the expression ''total amount of arrears of rent'' would mean total amount of rent fixed between the parties.

That contention cannot be accepted. When the Section uses the term ''arrears'', it would automatically mean that the amount payable is only rent

due after taking into account the amounts already paid.

The word ''arrears'' is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as ''outstanding debts'': what remains not done"". Hence, there is no difficulty in

holding that u/s 5 of the Act, the tenant is bound to pay the current rent plus 1/4th of the amount due and payable on the date of the publication of

the Act, with regard to the rent payable for fasli year ending with 30th June, 1989 and previous fasli years. It can never mean that the tenant is

bound to pay 1/4th of the total amount of rent fixed between the parties inclusive of amounts already paid.

If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it would tantamount to refixing the rent at one fourth of the agreed rent in

all cases where the tenant is in arrears. There is no warrant for such a construction. If the Legislature intended to wipe out all arrears in cases

where the tenants had paid earlier one fourth of the total rent or more, it would have said so expressly. Such provisions are found in some of the

Debt Relief Acts. No such provision is found in this Act. The Legislature has intended to give only a concession and reduce the burden of arrears

as on the date of the Act.

Learned Counsel invites my attention to the Preamble of the Act which reads in so far as it is relevant, as follows:

And whereas, in the interests of the general public, cultivating tenants should, at the present time, be spared the distractions and expenditure

involved in such action in order that the maximum possible advantage may result to the State in the matter of production of food groups: And

Whereas it is considered necessary, as a part of agrarian reform, to give relief to cultivating tenants from the heavy burden of discharging arrears of

rent, on certain conditions specified.

Learned Counsel submits that the Preamble of the Act indicates that the tenant should not be made to pay again if he had already paid some

amount towards the rent due. The Legislature has made it clear that the relief that is granted in the Act is only with reference to the arrears of rent.

The name of the Act itself shows that it pertains to arrears of rent due on the date of the Act. The Preamble also refers only to arrears of rent.

Hence, the Act does not refer to the amounts already paid. The Act is concerned only with the arrears of rent due as on the date of publication of

the Act. Consequently, the contention of learned Counsel cannot be accepted.

In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.