M. Singaravelu Nattar vs K. Venkatarama Iyer

N.S. Ramaswami, J.—The admitted arrears of rent was Rs. 1,070/-. Out of this, the tenant had paid only a sum of Rs. 475/-, and this

payment is admittedly after 1st July, 1971. As the balance of arrears had not been paid, the tenant was ordered to be evicted. When the land

owner took out the execution proceedings for eviction, the tenant contended that by virtue of the provisions of Act 21 of 1972, he must be

deemed to have paid the whole of the ""current rent"", and that, therefore, he cannot be evicted. The Revenue Court went into the question what

exactly was the ""current rent"" and determined the same at Rs. 660/-. That finding is not challenged before me. Under S.3(1) (a) (iii), if the tenant is

deemed to have paid or deposited the whole of the rent due for Fasli, 1381, then all arrears of rent shall stand wiped out. Under S.3(1) (a)(ii),

similarly all arrears of rent would get wiped out if the tenant pays or deposits the whole of the ""Current Rent"" within six months from the date of the

publication of the Act 21 of 1972. In this case, the tenant cannot be deemed to have paid or deposited the whole of the current rent.

He had paid only a sum of Rs. 475/- earlier. The whole of the current rent is Rs. 660/-. That means the difference between the sum of Rs. 475/-

and the sum of Rs. 660/- ought to have been paid or deposited as contemplated under S.3(a)(ii). S.3(1)(b) prescribes the method of deposit of the

current rent and S. 3 (1)(e) says that the time for deposit can be extended for balance, if any, only within the period of six months from the date of

the publication of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the tenant did not pay or deposit the difference between the sum of Rs. 660/- and the

sum of Rs. 475/-. That means, he is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 21 of 1972. The order of the Court below is correct.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.