Nagarajan and Others vs Dr. (Smt.) D. Padmavathy and Others

P.D. Dinakaran. J.

C.R.P. Nos. 1840 of 1994, 2583 to 2585 of 1994, 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995 are filed by the cultivating tenants, whose rights as

cultivating tenants are protected under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, whereas, C.R.P. Nos. 2768 to 2773

of 1995 are filed by the landlady, namely, the respondent in C.R.P. Nos. 1840, 2583 to 2585 and 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995.

The only question that arise for my consideration in the above revisions filed by the cultivating tenants, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 1840 of 1994,

2583 to 2585 of 1994, 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995, is whether the orders of the Revenue Court in the respective revision petitions are valid

in law due to their composite nature, determining the arrears of rent, granting time in payment of such arrears and passing orders of eviction in

default of payment of such arrears within the time so prescribed in the order.

In C.R.P. Nos. 2768 to 2773 of 1995 filed by the respective landlords, the quantum of arrears of rent arrived by the Revenue Court is

challenged on the basis of number of crops per year.

It is not in dispute that three decisions of this Court, namely,

(i) Chinnayyan Vs. R. Nagarathinam Pillai, ; (ii) Venkatswamy Naicker v. Ramasami Naicker 1977 L W. 553; and (iii) Srinivasa Thevar v.

Thirugnanasambandar 1982 T.L.N.J. 168; and.

one decision of the Apex Court reported in Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and Others Vs. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others, ,

while interpreting the powers and duties of the Revenue Court u/s 3 (4) (b) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, taking note of the

legislation intention in passing the above welfare legislation, held that, while exercise the power u/s 3 (4) (b), the Revenue Court should avoid the

eviction of the cultivating tenants wherever possible, but should not insist upon the eviction for such reason merely for non-payment of the rent in

time prescribed in the composite order.

In view of the above well settled principle of law on the point, I am obliged to set aside orders of the Revenue Court in the respective revision

petitions, namely, C.R.R. Nos. 1840 of 1994, 2583 to 2585 of 1994, 3214 of 1994 and 3210 of 1995, in so far as if relates to the eviction of the

cultivating tenants are concerned, and remit the matter to the Revenue Court, who, while disposing of the same, shall certainly take note of the

contentions of the landlady raised in Revision Petition Nos. 2768 to 2773 of 1995 relating to the alleged quantum of arrears based on the number

of crops raised by the cultivating tenants with regard to the respective lands and pass appropriate orders as permissible in law.

The revisions are ordered accordingly. No costs.