Ponnappa Gounder vs Kandaswamy and Another

Swamikkannu, J.—The only point that is raised in this civil revision Petition by the tenant-Petitioner here in is that the failure to fix a

reasonable rent in a case where there has been no written lease deed, is certainly to be viewed infavour of the tenant and in as much as the Court

below had not viewed the said point raised by the tenant in a proper and perspective manner, the order under revision becomes revisable u/s 6(B)

of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. It is relevant in this connection to note that the tenant has copiously admitted about his

commission of default in the payment of rent. New the trend of the argument that is advanced on behalf of the cultivating tenant is that the quantum

of rent is not justifiable and that the fixation of rent ought to have been in accordance with the yield that could be derived from the land in question

and the non-appreciation of course, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, make this order revisable and facilitate (SIC) of the

tenancy. But on the other hand, the contention that is raised on behalf of the landlord-Respondent here in is that in as much as the default in the

payment of rent as a fact, had been arrived at on the basis of the evidence available before it, and that fact, cannot be challenged successfully by

the tenant, it is only the said commission of default that will have to be taken as a ground for eviction of the tenant and not the incidental and

ancillary matter of fixation of rent. In other words, the learned Counsel for the Respondent stresses further that was the trend of the decision that

had been rendered by the Bench of this Court in Kuppana Chettiar and Another Vs. K. Ramachandran, and the decision rendered by this Court in

M. Kandaswamy Vs. Sowrirajan, . It is relevant in this connection to note that in Kuppana Chettiar and Another Vs. K. Ramachandran, it was

held as follows (at page 663):

The fact that, during the pendency of the civil revision Petitions, the tenants applied for and obtained orders of interim stay of the execution of the

order of eviction on condition of the deposit of the rent and did deposit the rent, will not in any way invalidate the order passed by the Authorized

Officer. From this point of view, we are unable to agree with the observation of Gokulakrishnan J.,

As on date, it cannot be considered that there is any default on the part of the Petitioner in the matter of payment of rent.

The question that has to be considered in respect of the default is, not with reference to any date subsequent to the order of the Authorized Officer

but with reference to the date fixed by him prior to his passing the order for eviction. The Section itself contemplates the Revenue Divisional Officer

giving an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within such time he consider just and reasonable and only if the cultivating tenant

fails to deposit the same as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer can pass an order for eviction. Consequently, the default in such cases must

have occurred prior to the Revenue Divisional Officer passing an order for eviction and in terms of an earlier order either independent or

conditional. In view of this, the default contemplated by the statutory provision is one occurring and existing on the date of the passing of the order

for eviction by the Revenue Divisional Officer himself and not at any stage subsequent to the said order. If the cultivating tenant does not deposit

the rent as directed, default has occurred and there is no question of that default being cured or wiped out by the tenant depositing the rent

pursuant to any interim order of this Court during the pendency of the revision Petition preferred against the order of eviction and any deposit made

during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court pursuant to an interim order of the High Court will be one in compliance with the interim

order of the High Court and can never be a deposit in compliance with the original order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. As a matter of fact, the

High Court is not concerned in such proceedings with the original default committed by the cultivating tenant in payment of the rent to the land-lord.

It is because of this original default, the Revenue Divisional Officer directs the tenant to deposit the rent into Court before a particular date and the

subject-matter of the civil revision proceedings in the High Court therefore, will not be the original default but only the failure of the tenant to

comply with the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Once that failure is admitted and the consequential order of the Revenue Divisional

Officer is unexceptionable, there will be no occasion for the High Court to give an opportunity to the cultivating tenant to comply with the original

direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to deposit the amount, because the original direction no longer stands and that direction has worked

itself out in the form of the final order for eviction, which on merits, is not challenged. If the matter is understood in this manner, certainly, any

deposit made by the tenant in terms of the interim order of stay passed by this Court staying the execution of the order for eviction passed by the

Authorized Officer can never be tenant amount to compliance with the conditional order passed by the Authorized Officer.

We make it clear that, if the tenants bad applied to the Authorized Officer for extension of time for the payment of the rent (in the present case in

Civil Revision Petition No. 2113 of 1979 that question will arise because even the date for payment of arrears rent had been agreed to between

the parties under a joint endorsement and the order has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer only in terms of 1he said joint endorsement

and the Revenue Divisional Officer himself may not have power to extend the time for payment expect with the consent of the Respondents and the

Authorized Officer had decided to extend the time and had passed the order for eviction, and the tenants had complained against such order, this

Court may, in proper cases, have power to interfere with the order complained against, and extend the time for payment. That is far different from

saying that the payment made pursuant to a conditional order of interim stay passed by this Court will be payment made in compliance with the

directions already given by the Authorized Officer before he passed the final order for eviction against the Petitioners herein, though such payment

may be taken into account in cases indicated by us above, namely where the tenant approaches the High Court complaining that the Revenue

Divisional Officer has unreasonably or illegally declined to extend the time applied for by him for the deposit of the amount.

In M. Kandaswamy Vs. Sowrirajan, Sathiadev J., has held as follows:

In this case, when the Revenue Court had taken note on the land-lord agreeing for one half of the amount to be remitted, and who had appraised

the Court of his properties being distrained for non-payment of the land revenue and on the second occasion reporting to the Revenue Court of his

movables having been already distrained, it cannot still he held that the Revenue Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in holding that the tenant

had willfully avoided paying the rent knowing the circumstances in which the land-lord is placed and therefore, the request made by him for further

adjournment is not bona fide. When a Revenue Court thus taken into account the relevant circumstances and also exercises jurisdiction reasonably

after granting such adjournments as are necessary for part payments to be made, and when it comes to the ultimate conclusion, that inspite of the

indulgence shown, the tenant is wilfully avoiding payment of rent it cannot in any sense be held that it had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in

it under Act 25 of 1955. It is not for this Court to go into the question of finding out whether the subsequent payment made during the pendency of

the Civil Revision Petition, would by itself show that the Revenue Court had either wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its

jurisdiction. Subsequent payments, cannot be taken into account for holding as to what had been committed by the time the order was passed by

the Revenue Court (SIC) was willful default or not. In this case, on the date when the order was passed, there were justifiable circumstances for

the Revenue Court to bold that the tenant is the person who was willfully avoided payment and he had not only dragged on the matter but be bad

not also given any Bona fide reason for grant of any further time. In this view, this civil revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Bearing in my mind the principles embedded in the decisions cited above and on a careful perusal of the evidence in this case together With the

manner in which the quasi judicial body had approached the subject relating to the point at issue, namely, whether the revision Petitioner herein is

liable to be evicted or not, this Court finds that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order under revision. There is no merit in the

revision Petition. The revision Petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.