NACHAL ACHI Vs. SOWRIMUTHU UDAYAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises out of a common order made by the Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli in a batch of petitions filed by the landlord for eviction against 11 tenants. It was alleged that the tenants had refused to pay rent due for 1957-58 samba crop. It is common ground that the tenancy agreement was a waram agreement by which the landlord and the tenant had agreed to share the crop equally with the additional burden of the landlord being liable to pay half a markkal per kalam out of the yield for wages for harvesting the crop. It is also agreed that two bundles of straw for every five kalams of the gross produce had to be delivered by the tenant to the landlord. A lease deed embodying these terms had been executed by all the tenants (respondents) in favour of the landlord for the year prior to the year of the petition. Admittedly in the year 1957-58, disputes arose, the tenants claiming that they would be liable to pay only 40 'per cent, of the gross produce and the landlord resisting the said claim. Obviously, the tenants' claim was based upon the provisions of the Madras Act XXIV of 1956. But the landlord refused to accept 40 per cent, of the gross produce as rent. The tenants then sent notices to the landlord requesting the landlord to be present at the harvest. Conveniently the landlord kept away from the harvest. Thereupon the tenant deposited what according to them represented 40 per cent, of the gross produce in the Sub-treasury at Keeranur taking advantage of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) of the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Act XXV of 1955). On the basis of the deposit, they requested the Special Deputy Collector to dismiss the eviction petitions.

(2.) The Deputy Collector found that the deposit under Section 3(3)(a) of Act XXV of 1955 was not an answer to the claim for eviction. He did not record a finding as to what the gross produce was from each of the fields in question under the cultivation of the respective tenants. Rejecting the evidence let in on both sides as unreliable and without recording a finding as regards the gross produce gathered from each field, he dismissed the petitions on the ground that the landlord should apply for fixation of fair rent.

(3.) Obviously the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to dismiss the petitions on the ground that no fair rent had been fixed in the case. If no fair rent had been fixed, it was his duty to find out what was the rent payable under the contract, if there was a contract applicable to the parties or under the law. In one portion of his order, the Deputy Collector has expressed the view that the rent payable to the landlord would be 50 per cent, of the gross produce because that was the rent which the tenants had agreed to pay in the previous year, namely, 1956-57. The Deputy Collector found that the agreement held good for 1957-58 also. On the other hand, the evidence in the case shows that there was no agreement between the parties as to how the produce was to be shared in 1957-58 because the tenants were insisting upon their rights to pay only 40 per cent, of the produce, while the landlord was not willing to accept the reduced share. This is therefore not a case where there was a contract as regards rent which was agreed to by all the parties. In the absence of such a contract, the Deputy Collector was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract-rent between the parties was 50 per cent, for the landlord.