AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—There is no merit in this case. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Act 38 of 1990. u/s 4 of the said Act, any cultivating
tenant, who is in arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the fasli year ending with the 30th day of June, 1989 and for any previous fasli year and
outstanding on the date of the publication of that Act shall within two months from the date of such publication, intimate his option in writing to the
competent authority to pay the current rent and the one-fourth or one-third of the arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part II or Part III of the
Act, for availing relief under that Act from the payment of the said arrears of rent. It was contended that Section 6 of the Act which provides for
stay of suits is an independent provision and will not depend upon the exercise of option u/s 4 of the Act and not even without exercising such
option, he is entitled to claim the relief under the Act. I do not agree, the language of Section 4 of the Act is very clear. Unless the option is
exercised under that Section no person can claim the benefit of the Act.
On the facts it is seen that in the affidavit filed before the Court below what is stated is that the petitioners came across the Act only on the date
of the affidavit, i.e., 6.12.1990. The application was dismissed by the Court below on 21.12.1990. There was no representation to the Court
below that the option was exercised. Now, it is contended that on 7.12.1990 the petitioners had exercised option/ and, therefore, the suits should
be stayed as per Section 6 of the Act. He submitted that he would produce evidence to prove such exercise of option. I refuse to receive
additional evidence in this Court as there is no plea in the Court below in the affidavit and no mention was made when the matter was pending
before the Court below that the option was exercised. I do not think it necessary at all to consider the plea raised in this Court that option was
exercised by the petitioners. The Court below is right in rejecting the prayer for stay.
I refuse to exercise my discretion u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The civil revision petitions are dismissed.