PONNAPPA GOUNDER Vs. KANDASWAMY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is raised in this civil revision Petition by the tenant -Petitioner here in is that the failure to fix a reasonable rent in a case where there has been no written lease deed, is certainly to be viewed in favour of the tenant and in as much as the Court below had not viewed the said point raised by the tenant in a proper and perspective manner, the order under revision becomes revisable under Sec. 6(B) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. It is relevant in this connection to note that the tenant has copiously admitted about his commission of default in the payment of rent. New the trend of the argument that is advanced on behalf of the cultivating tenant is that the quantum of rent is not justifiable and that the fixation of rent ought to have been in accordance with the yield that could be derived from the land in question and the non -appreciation of course, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, make this order revisable and facilitate (SIC) of the tenancy. But on the other hand, the contention that is raised on behalf of the landlord -Respondent here in is that in as much as the default in the payment of rent as a fact, had been arrived at on the basis of the evidence available before it, and that fact, cannot be challenged successfully by the tenant, it is only the said commission of default that will have to be taken as a ground for eviction of the tenant and not the incidental and ancillary matter of fixation of rent. In other words, the learned Counsel for the Respondent stresses further that was the trend of the decision that had been rendered by the Bench of this Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v/s. Ramachandran : (1980) 93 L.W. 656 and the decision rendered by this Court in M. Kandaswamy v/s. Sowrirajan : (1980) 93 L.W. 882. It is relevant in this connection to note that in Kuppanna Chettair v/s. Ramachandran : (1980) 93 L.W. 656 it was held as follows (at page 663):

(2.) Bearing in my mind the principles embedded in the decisions cited above and on a careful perusal of the evidence in this case together with the manner in which the quasi judicial body had approached the subject relating to the point at issue, namely, whether the revision Petitioner herein is liable to be evicted or not, this Court finds that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order under revision. There is no merit in the revision Petition. The revision Petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.