Hayarunisa vs Ramakrishna @ Balakrishnan

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—These three Revision Petitions could be disposed of by a common order, as the issue before this Court is same.

The petitioners in all the Revision Petitions are the landlords. The land in question to the extent of 2.03 acres was leased out to one Narayanasamy

Padayachi, in pursuance of an agreement dated 10.07.71. As per the agreement, the lessee Narayanasamy Padayachi agreed to give to the

petitioners 55 Kalams of paddy (30 Kalams in Kurvai and 25 Kalams in Thaladi) and 10 bundles of straw for each harvest and 2/5th of Catch

crops for each cultivation.

From the beginning, the said Narayanasamy Padayachi did not make regular payment of rent as per the terms of tenancy. Therefore, all the 3

petitioners filed 3 separate petitions seeking for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the eviction

petitions, Balakrishnah, the respondent herein, was impleaded as one on the respondents, since he claimed possession and enjoyment of the land in

question in the capacity as sub-lessee. However, the petitioners did not recognise him as lessee or sub-lessee in respect of the petitioners land at

any point of time. He also claimed that he is the adopted son of the said Narayanasamy Padayachi.

During the pendency of the petition, the said Narayanasamy Padayachi died. Therefore, the L.Rs. of the said Narayanasamy Padayachi, namely,

5 daughters, respondents 1 to 5, were impleaded in these petitions by filing the petition at the instance of the petitioners. After, the children of the

deceased Narayanasamy Padayachi were made as legal representatives, the respondent filed; an application before, the R.T.R Tahsildar,

Thriuvidaitnaruthur requesting to record him as cultivating tenant. When that application was pending, the respondent herein filed 3 petitions in the

Revenue Court requesting protection under Ad 38/90.

Admittedly, the legal representative is of-the deceased Narayanasamy Padayachi, who were made as parties, are the cultivating tenants of the

petitioner''s fend. Though they are in arrears of rents, they have not claimed any protection under Act 38 of 1990. The application pending before

the R.T.R. Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur filed by the respondent has not yet been disposed of. At this stage, the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam by

the common order dated 9.12.93 dismissed all these applications filed by the respondent before the Revenue Court seeking protection under Act

38 of 1990. While disposing of the said applications, the main petition filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Court praying for eviction was

also dismissed by observing that they could renew their prayer after the disposal of the application filed by the respondent pending before the

R.T.R. Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimarthur. Since the petitioners were aggrieved over the said order, they filed a review petition before the Revenue

Court and submitted that the disposal of the applications filed by the respondent seeking protection under Act 38 of 1990 would not put any bar

for the enquiry in the main petitions for eviction filed by the petitioners. This was also dismissed by the Revenue Court saying that there was no

reason to review the earlier order passed on 9.12.93 by the order dated 25,08.94.

These orders have been challenged by the Petitioners/Landlords before this Court in these Civil Revision Petitions.

Mr. Mohammed Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the petition filed by the landlords for eviction

and the petitions filed by the respondent under Act 38 of 1990 are independent of each other the Revenue Court ought not to have dismissed the

main petition filed by the petitioners, while disposing of the applications filed by the respondent. It is also pointed out that both the orders would

not give proper reasonings to reject the prayer made by the petitioners.

On the other hand, Mr. Raja Ramani, the learned counsel representing Mr. Vijayaraghavan would contend, in support and in justification of the

impugned order, that unless the application filed before the R.T.R. Tahsildar is disposed of, the main application filed before the Revenue Court,

Kumbakonam cannot be disposed of since the issues raised in these petitions have got a bearing on the result of the applications pending before

the R.T.R. Tahsildar, Thriuvidaimaruthur.

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and gone through the grounds and other records.

On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is quite clear that the impugned orders are patently illegal, in view of the reason that the, issue before the

Revenue Court raised by the petitioners, especially after the L.Rs. of the deceased Narayanasamy Padayachi have been impleaded as the parties

and particularly when the respondent has already been impleaded in the capacity as sub-lessee is un-doubly independent from the question which

has to be decided by the R.T.R. Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur. Moreover, the dismissal of the main petition filed by the petitioners before the

Revenue Court by order dated 9.12.93 was on the ground that the issue is to be decided by the R.T.R. Tahsildar. However, while dismissing the

application for review, different reasons have been given. It is stated that the said application was earlier dismissed for the reason that L.R.s were

not brought on record. This would also make it clear that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind.

So, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit back to the Revenue Court to decide the issue in the

main petition independently, since all the parties concerned are already parties in the main petition for eviction. Accordingly, the Revisions are

allowed and impugned orders are set aside and the Revenue Court is directed to conduct the enquiry, hear the parties and dispose of the petition

within 8 weeks from 30.06.99, i.e., the date of the reopening of the Revenue Court. No costs.