Rajaiah Odayar vs Panchapakesa Iyer and Others

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—This civil revision petition arises from an interlocutory finding reached by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur

in 0. S. No. 47 of 1962, holding that the determination of amount of rent u/s 3 (3) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants* Protection Act will not be

res judicata in a suit filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent. Normally. I would have dismissed this civil revision petition on the short

ground that it is not the practice of this Court to interfere: with interlocutory findings given by a Subordinate Court when the main matter before it

had not finally been disposed of. That rule is a sound one, for the aggrieved party can always challenge the correctness of such findings in any

appeal that he may file if the Judgment in the suit or proceeding ultimately goes against him. But it is unnecessary for me to adopt that procedure

now for I find that the view taken fry the learned District Munsif is entirely correct and is supported by authority. The jurisdiction of the revenue

Court u/s 3 (3) of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a special limited jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling the tenant to deposit rent to

avoid wrangles between the landlord and the tenant in relation thereto. The determination of the question of arrears of rent u/s 3 (3) of the Act

therefore is merely to provide an agency for that purpose. If the amount ascertained as rent by the revenue Court is not paid, the statute provides a

sanction by way of eviction.

The particular jurisdiction to determine the question whether there were arrears of rent u/s 3 (3) of the Act being vested purely for the purpose

designated by the statute, a determination of it thereunder cannot be decisive of the question as to what exactly was the extent of arrears of rent

when a question of the right of the landlord to recover the rent arises. That matter, involving as it does, the rights between the parties can only be

agitated in a properly constituted suit in a civil Court. It is true that Section 8 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act bars the jurisdiction of the

civil Court; but that is only in regard to matters for which provision has been made in the Act; for example, where a landlord files an application for

the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent, it might be necessary for the revenue Court with a view to

exercise its jurisdiction to order eviction, to determine incidentally whether there were arrears of rent or not. Such determination can be regarded

as made only for the limited purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s 3 (3) or 3 (4) i.e., for the purposes mentioned in the Act. Therefore Section 6

cannot take away the right of the landlord to recover whatever is due to him under the law. Such rights can be enforced as I said only under the

general law. Indeed it will be seen that there is no provision in the Act to enable a landlord to recover arrears of rent as such from his defaulting

tenant. It has been held by this Court in G. Venkatachala Odayar Vs. Ramachandra Odayar and Another, , that the determination of the question

whether a cultivating tenant is in arrears of rent or not, for the purpose of ordering his eviction will not operate as ''res judicata'' in a subsequent civil

suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of. arrears of rent. That principle, in my view, will apply to the present case. The civil

revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.