S. Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs Sri Brahmapuri eswara swami Temple and another

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—These revision petitions are directed against the order of the learned District Judge, East Thanjavur, by which he dismissed the two revision petitions by a common order filed by the tenants against the order of the Revenue Court, Thiruvarur. The respondents who is the devastanam had applied for eviction of the two tenants, namely, the two revision petitioners, under S. 19 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as 1961 Act. The ground for eviction was that the tenants had failed to pay the agreed rent in each case. In the case of Muthukumaraswami, the rent was said to be 122 kalams of paddy and 12 bundles of straw and he had not paid rent for fasli 1388 and 1389. In the case of the other tenant the agreed rent was 58 kalams and 12 bundles of paddy per year and he had not paid rent for fasli years 1388 and 1389. According to the Devastanam, this agreement is contained in the document Ex. P1 in each case. This was disputed by the tenants. Both the tenants also simultaneously had applied for remission under S. 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair rent) Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act. The claim for remission was rejected by the Special Deputy Collector who was functioning as the Revenue Court. The tenant had filed extracts from Adangal which shows that there was yield of only 40 per cent in the relevant years. This entry was ignored on the ground that it only showed a rough approximation. The application were also rejected on the ground that they were filed only after the eviction petitions were filed. Consequently, a conditional order was made in each case requiring the money value of the agreed rent to be paid. The two revision petition filed by the two tenants were heard separately by the learned District Judge, but they were disposed of by a common order. These two revision petitions are thus directed against the common order made by the District Judge, and the orders made by the Revenue Court. The short ground on which the orders of the learned District Judge required to be set aside is that the orders did not disclose any independent application of mind to the contentions raised by the tenants. The learned District Judge merely stated that the Revenue Court had computed the arrears into money value after going through the oral and documentary evidence, and therefore, no interference was necessary with the preliminary order passed by the Revenue Court. The substantial question which fell for consideration before the District Judge was whether the computation of arrears into money value and the direction to pay the agreed rent was justified in spite of the fact that there was failure of crops as clearly reflected in the adangal records.

Now so far as the orders of the Revenue Court are concerned, the application has been rejected on the ground of delay. No provision has been brought to my notice by either parties which requires the application to be filed within a particular time. There does not seem to be anything wrong in law if the tenant applies for remission after the filing of the eviction petition for non-payment of rents on the ground of failure of crops, The adangal records in the instant case specifically referred to the yield of the crops at 40 per cent of the normal yield. Prima facie, that was sufficient for the tenant to contend that there was failure of crops to the extent of 60 per cent. Adangal records, are public records and at least the Revenue Court could not ignore them, because they are made in the course of normal duties by the Village Officers. It is true that there may be some other evidence in addition which may be given to show that was the exact percentage of the failure of crops. In any case, it was wholly improper on the part of the Revenue Court to ignore the adangal records on the ground that there was no independent evidence adduced on behalf of the tenants. It, therefore, becomes necessary to set aside the order of the Revenue Court also and remand these matters to the Special Deputy Collector functioning as the Revenue Court for a proper decision of the remission application made by the tenants. After that is decided then the Deputy Collector will consider the application for eviction on its own merits. Both the revision petitions are thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Since the matters are very old, the Revenue Court is directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the records.