GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. MURUKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition on behalf of the landlord petitioners, Mr. Balakrishna Eradi learned counsel challenges the order passed by the learned Munsiff of Palghat on an application filed by the respondents herein seeking relief [ under S.73 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act I of 1964.

(2.) The application filed by the respondents before the lower court under S.73 of the said Act, was accompanied by a deposit of a sum of Rs. 2946-60, According to the respondents, the deposit of that amount will enable them to have a complete discharge of the arrears of rent for the period 1128 to 1136 (M.E.) inclusive. This claim made by the respondents was opposed by the petitioners on several grounds. But all the grounds of objection centred round one aspect, namely that the deposit made by the respondents was not sufficient and in accordance with the provisions contained in S.73(1) of the Act, so as to enable them to claim complete discharge of the arrears of rent. Details regarding the calculation made by the respondents have been controverted by the petitioners, who themselves, in turn, appear to have filed a statement giving particulars of what according to them will be the proper amount that should have been deposited by the respondents so as to enable them to get the benefit of S.73 of the Act. At this stage it may be mentioned that the period taken in by 1128 to 1131 is covered by a decree passed in a suit, namely O. S. No. 42/1956. And so far as the subsequent period is concerned, there is no suit or other proceeding pending. In respect of the period covered by the decree, it is also seen that the landlord has filed an execution petition for realising the amounts, and was taking active steps to execute his decree. It was at this stage that for all the periods referred to above that the respondents filed O. P. 128/64 before the learned Munsiff.

(3.) The learned Munsiff has held that in respect of the years 1132 and 1133 there has been a short deposit and that the calculation of the quantum of rent payable by the respondents is not correct. Apart from finding that there has been a short deposit in respect of the quantum of rent for those periods, the learned Munsiff has also found, in respect of that period as well as various other years in question, that the deposit of the value of paddy is not in accordance with the market rate, namely the rate published in the State Gazette. These are the findings which have been recorded by the learned Munsiff as against the respondents. That is, the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of these deposits regarding the quantum of deposit to be made for 1132 and 1133 as well as the rate at which it has to be deposited, have been accepted by the learned Munsiff.