M. KANDASWAMY Vs. SOWRIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and under Section 6(b) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer of Tiruvarur in P. No. 138 of 1979 on 5th December, 1979. The tenant is the petitioner herein against whom a petition was filed under Section 3(4) (a) of Act XXV of 1955 for evicting him for non -payment of lease rent for Fasli 1388. The Authority held that this is a case where "the tenant (intended) to drag the matter wilfully and there is no bonafide reason to grant any further time" and hence it is ordered the tenant to be evicted since he has not paid the lease rent in -spite of opportunities given Mr. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that the refusal to grant further time beyond the two adjournments given earlier, being unreasonable, the Authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and hence, this Court during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition can not only take note of the subsequent payment of rent made and also hold that such a payment made pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition would tantamount to remittance of rent within the time fixed by the Authority. He also contends that failure to grant further time had res -suited in gross prejudice to the tenant resulting in. eviction and hence the order of eviction is unsound and unsustainable in law. He also relies upon the decision of this Court rendered in Mahalinga Voikkaran v. P.R.S. Sellathammal : (1972) 85 LW 376 to contend that a Civil Revision Petition is a continuation of the petition filed under Act XXV of 1955 and therefore, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and if such a payment is made, it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and it would in turn result in setting aside the order of eviction.

(2.) MR . Raman, counsel for the respondent/landlord in turn relies upon the decision rendered in Sivasankara Devarayar v. (Minor) Prakash by Guardian, (1979) TLNJ 290 wherein, it has been stated that where a revision can be considered as a continuation of the proceedings under Act XXV of 1955 initiated before the Revenue Court is an aspect on which there is still a grave doubt, and that there has been a compliance of the orders passed during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition. cannot be taken into account for finding out whether there has been a failure to pay rent on time or not. The compliance of interim order pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition is no ground to hold that the order of the Revenue Court has been complied.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Ganesan is that it was only the inability of the tenant which prevented him from paying the value of the restricted claim of 30 kalams and therefore, the conclusion that there was no bona fide in requesting for further time being erroneous, the Revenue Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.