T. Selvarajan vs S. Muralidaran

S. Swamikannu, J.—This is a civil revision petition filed u/s 6-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants'' Protection Act (XXV of 1955) read

with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant Selvarajan, the petitioner herein against the Order, dated 20th January 1981 in

Petition ''No. 170 439 of 1980 filed u/s 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955, by the landlord. The said order reads as follows:

This is a petition u/s 3(4) of Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 for eviction of the respondent from the petition mentioned lands for keeping in arrears

of rent due for faslis 1388 and 1389. When the case came on for hearing on 23rd September, 1980, the respondent admits to pay the arrears of

Rs. 900-00. He paid a sum of Rs. 320 on 6 dates from 23rd October, 1980 to 30th December, 1980. When the case was taken up for enquiry

on 20th January, 1981, the respondent was absent and set ex parte. The respondent is in arrears of Rs. 580.00 to the petitioner. This is a case of

wilful default on the part of the respondent. Hence the petition is allowed and the respondent is evicted from the petition mentioned lands and he

should hand over peaceful possession of the petition mentioned lands to the petitioner or his authorised agent after removing all obstructions.

Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 reads as follows:

3 (3)(a). Every landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant falling under Sub-section (2) shall, whether or no there is an order or decree of a Court

for the eviction of such cultivating tenant, make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer and such application shall bear a Court fee stamp

of one rupee.

(b) On receipt of such application the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating

tenant to make their representations, hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it and in

a case falling under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-section (2), in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in Sub-section (3),

the Revenue Divisional Officer may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative

circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such costs as he may

direct. If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid them under Sub-section (3)(6). If the cultivating tenant

fails to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order for eviction.

By reading the provisions of the Act, Mr. Soundarapandian learned'' counsel for the tenant revision petitioner submits that the above order

pronounced by the Special Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer, Revenue Court, Kumbakonamis wrong in that, the said authority had rolled up

and made a composite order stating that there had been wilful default committed by the tenant and at the same time it had also ordered eviction of

the tenant-revision petitioner herein which is prohibited by the ratio decidendi of the decision reported in Srinivam Thevar v.

Thirugnanosambandam (1982) T.L.N.J. 168 According to this decision u/s 3(4)(b) of the Act the first order to be passed after hearing parties,

should relate to a determination being made as to whether a default has been committed as contemplated under the Act for passing an order of

eviction. If there is no default, then Revenue Divisional Officer shall give reasons, if he decided in his discretion after taking into account the relative

circumstances of landlord and tenant, not to give time to make up the deficiency, but to order eviction straight. a way as held in Chinnamarkathian

alias Muthu Gounder and Others Vs. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others, . If Revenue Divisional Officer, in the first instance after hearing

parties, decides in his discretion to grant time to the defaulting cultivating tenant, he should take into account the relative circumstances of the

landlord and the tenant and fix such reasonable timers he may find it necessary to grant, and furnish reasons therein. In the instant case, before us,

we find that none Was examined on behalf of either the landlord or the tenant--the revision petitioner herein-No document was filed before the

Special Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer, Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. In other words, only on the contents of the petition u/s 3(4) of the

Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 for eviction of the revision petitioner herein from the petition mentioned lands for keeping in arrears of rent due for

faslis 1388 and 1389 on 23rd September, 1980, it is seen that the tenant revision petitioner herein admitted payment due to the tune of Rs. 900-

In other words by his admission, the tenant revision petitioner herein had made himself liable to pay the arrears claimed. This aspect cannot be

considered as one which requires another finding whether there had been default or not on the part of the revision petitioner herein in the payment

of rent due to the respondent herein. As a matter of fact, subsequent to 23rd September, 1980, the revision petitioner herein had paid a sum of Rs.

320 on six dates from23rd October, 1980 to 30th December, 1980. therefore, when the case was taken up for enquiry on 20th January, 1981,

and when the revision petitioner herein was absent, he was set ex parte and the arrears of Rs. 580 was directed to be paid by the petitioner. When

once there had been admission on the part of the tenant-revision petitioner herein that he was liable to pay the arrears as claimed by the

respondent-landlord, that means and includes that he had submitted to an order that he is liable to pay the arrears and on that ground, it cannot be

certainly held that the Court had impliedly given its findings that the revision petitioner herein has committed default. Merely because in the course

Of its order the authority below had observed that this is a case of wilful default on the, part of the revision petitioner herein it does not mean that

once again he had indulged in giving another finding with respect to this aspect. Therefore, the later portion of the order in question is the second

part of the order contemplated by the ratio decidendi of the decision reported in Srinisasa Thevar v. Thirugnanasambandam (1982) T.L.N.J. 168

Therefore, the portion of the order in question which gives a direction for the eviction of the revision petitioner herein is perfectly correct and in

consonance with the ratio decidendi of the decision referred to above by Mr. Soundarapandian, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. There

is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails, and stands dismissed ; but in the circumstances without costs.