G. GANAPATHY Vs. R. ANBALAGAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Respondents herein are the landlords within the meaning of the Act. The landlords filed application T.C.T.P. No. 212 of 1982 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tirunelveli Under Sec. 3(4)(a) of the Act. The ground alleged for eviction is arrears of rent in respect of the lands concerned, for the year 1980 -81. From the order passed by the Revenue Court, dated 11th June,1982, it is found that notice was sent by registered post to the cultivating tenant and he refused to receive the same, as could be seen from the postal endorsement on the cover of the notice sent. The Revenue Court accepted this endorsement as sufficient proof of service and set the cultivating tenant ex parte and passed an order on 11th June, 1982, accepting the evidence of the second of the landlords, who was examined in the case, and ordered the cultivating tenant to deposit Rs. 1,200 towards the lease arrears in respect of the lands concerned due to the landlords for 1980 -81. Within 15 days from that date. This order of the Revenue Court was admittedly not communicated to the cultivating tenant. The Revenue Court took up the matter for orders on 12th July, 1982 and since the cultivating tenant did not pay the lease arrears as per the order, dated 11th June, 1982, ordered the eviction of the cultivating tenant from the lands, concerned. This order of the Revenue Court is the subject -matter of challenge in the present revision.

(2.) Mr. M. Srinivasan learned Counsel for the cultivating tenant would submit that Rule 8(ii)(a) of the rules framed under the Act hereinafter referred to as the rules directs that the proceedings of the Revenue Court shall be summary and shall as far as possible be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the Code with regard to the issue and service of summons and in the instant case there had been a transgression of the concerned provisions of the Code with regard to the issue and service of summons and hence the entire process adopted by the Revenue Court in proceeding ex parte against the cultivating tenant is tainted with illegality and material irregularity and on this ground learned Counsel seeks interference in revision. I shall deal with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the cultivating tenant in this behalf as well as the counter submissions made by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam learned Counsel for the landlords in seriatim.

(3.) Mr. M. Srinivasan learned Counsel for the cultivating tenant would state that the provisions of Order V of the Code will apply with equal force to the proceedings before the Revenue Court under the Act with regard to the issue and service of summons and he wants this Court to construe the expressions as far as possible occurring in Rule 8(ii) of the rules as conveying the meaning that in the absence of any inhibition express or implied in the Act or the rules, Orders V of the Code will have to govern the issue and service of summons under the Act and the rules. As against this Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam learned Counsel for the landlords would state that the expression as far as possible need not be stretched to spell out a proposition that the provisions of Order V of the Code will have to be strictly applied and the learned Counsel would further submit that a discretion still lay with the Revenue Court to adopt the said provisions according to exigencies.