Ravamanickamma vs Ammani Ammal

Balakrishna Ayyar, J.—On 15th April, 1957, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, made an order directing the petitioner inter

alia, to clear off the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order, failing which she would be evicted.

A notice in Form III was also ordered to issue ""accordingly"". This notice directed the petitioner to tender the rent due to the landowner within

30 days from the date thereof and warned that if default were made an order would issue for her eviction. The petitioner alleges that on 1st May,

1957, she sent a money order to the landlord for the amount of the arrears of rent. This money order, contains a number of endorsements, some of

which are difficult to read. One of the endorsements reads ""Not present"". Eventually it was returned to the remitter. The landholder then filed a

petition for evicting the tenant and that was allowed. The tenant now seeks to canvas the correctness of that order.

Though the order which the Revenue Divisional Officer made on 15th April, 1957, directed the petitioner to clear off the arrears, the notice in

Form III which he issued in pursuance of his order however only required her to tender the amount to the landowner. If, therefore, the petitioner

can show that the money order was correctly addressed she would have complied with the terms of the notice. But no evidence was adduced to

show that the address entered in the money order was the correct. address. That being so, the position is that there is no evidence to show that

the. direction given in Form III had been properly complied with.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that u/s 3(4)(b) of Madras Act XXV of 1955, as amended in 1956, the Revenue Divisional Officer

had no jurisdiction to direct the cultivating tenant to tender the money to the landowner ; all that he could require the tenant to do was to deposit

the arrears of rent in Court. That is correct enough and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is no doubt at variance with this requirement of

the statute. But then the petitioner should have come up to this Court to revise that order. That she did not do so shows that in spite of its

irregularity she did not really feel aggrieved by it. I cannot now, after the various events that have happened since then, be asked to re-open an

order about which, at the time it was made, the petitioner had no grievance. The position, therefore, comes to this: the petitioner was given 30

days'' time to pay off or if we take the direction in the Form III Notice to tender the arrears of rent. She did neither. An order was therefore, made

for her eviction. I do not think that in the circumstances of the case I shall be justified in interfering.

This petition is therefore dismissed with costs.