R SESHIER Vs. T AYYACHI AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the landlord, Seshier, against the order in T. C. T. P. No. 171 of 1977 on the file of the Authorised officer (Land Reforms), Madurai granting remission of the rent payable by the respondenttenant, Ayyachi Ambalam, in an application filed by the revision petitioner for eviction of the respondent.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner was that the respondent-tenant has not paid the fair rent fixed for the first bogam of fasli 1387 and therefore he should be evicted, The contention of the respondent was that there was 40 proper yield due to heavy rains and pest infections and that there was only 40 per cent yield, The learned Authorised Officer on the evidence of P. W. 2, karnam of the Sholavandan village, came to the conclusion that there was only 40 per cent of the normal yield from out of the lands and ordered payment of proportionate rent. The landlord challenges that order of the Authorised Officer.

(3.) Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Authorised Officer will have no jurisdiction to grant remission or to order proportionate payment of fair rent in view of the fact that there is no provision in Act XXV of 1955, as amended by Act 14 of 1956. This contention appears to be well founded. The landlord in this case filed an application tinder S. 3 (4) of the said Act to evict the cultivating tenant as he has not paid the rent for the first bogam of fasli 1387. A reading of S. 3 (4) (b) shows that on receipt of an application, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall after giving reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representations, shall hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application Or dismissing it and in a case falling under Cl. (a) or cl. (aa) of sub-sec. (2) in which the tenant has not availed of the provisions contained in sub-see. (31, the Revenue Divisional Officer may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable for depositing the arrears of rent payable by the cultivating tenant under the Act and on such payment, the tenant shall be deemed to have paid the rent and if he does not pay the rent, the Revenue Divisional Officer may order evicting him. It is therefore obvious that the officer acting under this Act has either to allow the application or to dismiss it after hearing the representations of the parties who have been served and in case he finds the tenant is in arrears, he may, in his discretion grant some time for depositing such arrears and if the cultivating tenant does not comply with the order, he may pass an order of eviction. There is nowhere any provision in this Act for the Authorised Officer to pass an order reducing the fair rent fixed and directing the cultivating tenant to pay proportionate rate of rent even assuming that the crops were damaged by rain and pests it therefore appears to me that, the Authorised officer will not have jurisdiction to grant remission of the rent fixed in other proceedings. It is not disputed and it is also seen from Ex. B. I and also from the order of the learned Authorised Officer that fair rent has been fixed in respect of the land of the revision petitioner cultivated by the tenant respondent. In Ramaswami Gounder v. Perianna Moopan, (1959) 1 Mad LJ 122, Ramachandra Iyer J. as he then was, took the view that a Revenue Court under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act will not have the power to remit the rent due by a tenant on the ground of failure of crop, I am in respectful accord with this view of the learned Judge and as the Authorised Officer has clutched at the jurisdiction not vested in him this revision has to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The tenant has therefore to pay the full arrears of rent. The result is the order of the Authorised Officer is set aside.