BALUCHAMY Vs. THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order evicting the tenant for non-payment of arrears. While admitting the revision petition, the Petitioner was directed to deposit the balance of arrears. The petitioner has deposited the same. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has deposited the arrears due, Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the order of eviction has to be set aside. A Bench of this High Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 656:

(2.) Mr. Natarajan, no doubt argues that the revision is the continuation of the proceedings of the Revenue Court and as such this court can as well set aside the order of eviction since the arrears have been paid as directed by this court. This is what exactly the Bench of this court has not approved of in the above decision. The abovesaid observation extracted by me is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as such, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(3.) It is stated by Mr. Natarajan, that there are standing crops and requested time for harvesting the same. Mr. A. C. Munuswami Reddi, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for time being granted for the harvesting of the standing crops. Accordingly the petitioner is granted time till he harvests the standing crops on the land in question. Petition dismissed.