Ranganathan vs Ranganathan

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The petitioner in this revision petition is the ''landlord'' within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants

Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act 21 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent herein claims himself to be a ''Cultivating tenant'' within

the meaning of the Act. Reliefs were asked for by the respondent herein under S.3 of the Act by filing a petition P. No. 479 of 1973 on the file of

the Revenue Court, Mayuram, against the ''landlord''. The ''cultivating tenant'' deposited a sum of Rs. 991.50 on 9th February 1973, which

according to him represented the value of rent for the property in question for Fasli 1381 under the Act. The ''landlord'' contested the claims of the

''cultivating tenant'' stating inter alia that the deposit was inadequate, because grams were raised, and the value of the grams has not been included,

and even otherwise the value of the paddy and straw has been worked out at a lesser rate. The Revenue Court found that the claim for value of the

grams put forth by the ''landlord'' is not tenable, because it has not been proved that the ''cultivating tenant'' raised grams. With regard to the value

of the paddy and straw, the Revenue Court held it must be Rs. 1051.50 and giving credit to the sum of Rs. 991.50 already deposited, the

''cultivating tenant'' was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 60 and he was given time till 24th March 1974 to deposit this sum of Rs. 60 and report

the matter on 25th March 1974. This order of the Revenue Court was passed on 23rd March 1974. The present revision has been preferred by

the ''landlord'' challenging the order of the Revenue Court. Thiru R. Balachander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in

view of the pronouncements of this Court construing the provisions of the Act, the Revenue Court must be held to have no jurisdiction to grant time

to the ''cultivating tenant'' to make up the short-fall in the proper amount to be deposited, and in any event the ''cultivating tenant'' was not bona fide

in making the proper deposit and hence his application for reliefs under the provisions of the Act must be rejected.

It is true this court had occasion to consider the provisions of the Act, and in particular S.3 of the Act in some of the decisions, but in my opinion

the import of and the principles deducible from the said decisions do not support the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It would be pertinent to extract S.3(i) of the Act to understand and appreciate the implications thereof--

All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord and outstanding on the 30th June 1971 (hereinafter referred to as arrears of rent)

shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefore ,if such cultivating tenant--

(i) has before the date of the publication of this Act paid to the landlords or deposited in the court or before the competent authority to the account

of the land-lord ; or

(ii) pays or deposits in the manner specified in clause (b) within six months from the date of the publication of this Act ; or

(iii) is deemed to have paid or deposited under this Act;

the whole of the rent due for the fasli year commencing on 1st July 1971 and ending with 30th June 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the current

rent).

(b) A Cultivating tenant may--(i) pay to the landlord the current rent; or (ii) deposit in the court or before the competent authority, to the account of

the landlord, the current rent or if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit;

(c) The court in which, or the competent authority before which, the deposit is made shall cause notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord

and determine, after a summary enquiry whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of the current rent due from the cultivating

tenant--If the court or competent authority finds that any further sum is due, it shall direct the cultivating tenant to deposit the further sum within the

period specified in clause (a)(ii). If the court or competent authority adjudges that no further sum is due or if the cultivating tenant deposits within

the time referred to above, such further sum as is ordered by the court or competent authority, the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to have paid

the current rent for the purposes of this Act.

In Kasturi Ammal v. Perumal Naicker C.R.P. 1371 of 1973=1974 T.L.N.J. 38 Ramanujam, J. had to deal with a case under the Act in which

the application under S.3 was filed on 12th February 1973 because 11th February 1973 happened to be a holiday. There was a shortfall with

reference to the proper deposit under the Act, and the court below declined to grant further time. The order of the court below was passed on 5th

May 1973, and on the question as to whether further time could be granted, the learned Judge held that the court cannot extend the time beyond

the six months period.

N.S. Ramaswami, J. in V. Sankara Aiyar v. Sandana Muthiriar C.R.P. 1372 of 1973, agreed with the above view of Ramanujam, J. and

discountenanced the plea that the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for making the proper deposit. In the case dealt with by N.S.

Ramaswami, J. the deposit which was found to be insufficient was made on 6th February 1973, and the order of the court below directing the

cultivating tenant to deposit further amounts to make up the deficiency was passed on 2nd May 1973. From a discussion of the facts in the

judgment of the learned Judge, it appears that in the said case the court below purported to extent the time.

In Subramania Thevar v. Angammal C.R.P. 1568 of 1973=1973 T.L.N.J. 516 Kailasam, J. as he then was, observed that taking the entire

section as a whole, the proper construction would be to hold that the tenant would be entitled only to a period of six months from the date of the

publication of the Act; but in determining that period, the time taken by the court under S.3(1)(c) of the Act will have to be excluded.

N.S. Ramaswami, J. in Mookan alias Pichiah Nattar v. Durai Pandian C.M.A. 92 of 1973 = 1974 T.L.N.J. 142 held that the cultivating tenant

would get the benefit of wiping out the arrears if the whole of the rent due for fasli 1381 is paid and the Act cannot be availed of by the cultivating

tenant if only a part of the rent is paid. The learned Judge repelled the argument that even though the whole of the rent due for fasli 1381 might not

have been either paid or deposited, the arrears should be held to have been wiped out in proportion to the payment or deposit made.

There is another judgment of N.S. Ramaswami, J. in Chinnathambi Padayachi v. Thanikachalam Pillai C.R.P. 341 of 1973=1974 T.L.N.J. 177.

The learned Judge referred to the dictum of Kailasam, J. as he then was, in Subramania Thevar v. Angammal C.R.P. 1668 of 1973=1973

T.L.N.J. 516, and upheld the contention on behalf of the landlord that the enquiry contemplated under S.3(1)(c) can be only in respect of any

bona fide dispute regarding the amount payable. The learned Judge held that only if there is any bona fide controversy as to the amount due, the

exclusion of the time taken by the court will arise for consideration.

In Ramaswami v. Sennimalai Gounder C.R.P. 1605 of 1973=1974 T.L.N.J. 389 Ramaprasada Rao, J. was concerned with a case where the

original deposit was made on 13th October 1972, and the Authorised Officer in that case passed an order on 5th March 1973, to make a further

deposit of Rs. 50 and this deposit was made on 9th March 1973. The learned Judge followed the decision of Kailasam, J. as he then was, in

Subramania Thevar v. Angammal C.R.P. 1668 of 1973=1973 T.L.N.J. 516 and held that the time taken by the court under S.3(i)(c)will have to

be excluded.

Suryamurthi, J. had occasion to consider this question in Lakshmiammal v. Kalanjiyam C.R.P. 2150 of 1975=1978 T.L.N.J. 125 where the

deposit was made on 9th February 1973, and the order of the Authorised Officer was passed on 26th April 1974, and the Authorised Officer

granted a further period of 2 months from the date of his order to deposit the balance. The learned Judge following the ratio of the decisions of

N.S. Ramaswami, J. in Sankara Aiyar v. Sandana Muthiriar C.R.P. 1372 of 1973 held that the provisions of the Act would not enable the court to

extend the time beyond the period prescribed by it.

The decisions referred to above have recognised the principles that the period of six months referred to in S.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Act cannot be

extended by the court; that the time taken by the court in deciding the case under S.3(1)(c) of the Act will have to be excluded, and that if the

cultivating tenant acts mala fide and deliberately deposits inadequate and insufficient amounts, and drags on the proceedings to a considerable

length of time, then the time takes by the court under S.3(i)(c) of the Act cannot be availed of by the cultivating tenant so as to be excluded in

computing the period of six months concerned. Coming to the facts of the present case, the deposit was made on 9th February 1973 which was

later found to be not adequate in a sense, and a further deposit of Rs. 60 was directed to be made by the court below. The order of the court

below is dated 23rd March 1974. The court below granted time till 24th March 1974, to make the further deposit of Rs. 60, that is, a day''s

extension was granted. When the original deposit was made on 9th February 1973, the ''cultivating tenant'' had two days time to make the requisite

deposit within the period of six months. If the time taken by the court, viz., the period between 9th February 1973 and 23rd March 1974, is

excluded, then one day''s time granted by the court below to make up the deficiency cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The court below has

not extended the time beyond six months period.

In a recent pronouncement, V. Ramaswami, J. in Semmanna Gounder v. Mysore Mission by its power agent Rev. Fr. Uthrium 1977-1-M.L.J.

38=89 L.W. 635 has accepted the principle that if a few days are left after the application for declaration was filed then the tenant would be

satisfying the provision if he deposits the money within the left out period after the disposal of his application. I am in respectful agreement with the

said principle laid down by the learned Judge, and I am inclined to follow the same to the facts of the present case.

Even otherwise, the court below found that a bona fide controversy has arisen for adjudication as to the proper deposit. The ''landlord'' put

forth a plea that grams were raised and their value has not been deposited. The court below analysed the materials on record and found that this

case of the ''landlord'' is without substance, and there has been a mistake committed by the ''cultivating tenant'' only with regard to the paddy and

the straw. Hence, there was a justification for excluding the time taken by the court in the enquiry under S.3(1)(c) of the Act. In this view, I do not

find that the order of the court below suffers any infirmity in law or suffers on the question of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in revision.

Hence this revision is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.