LAWS(MAD)-1982-1-7

V RAMAR THEVAR Vs. KANNIKAPARAMESWARI AMMAN DEVASTHANAM

Decided On January 07, 1982
V.RAMAR THEVAR Appellant
V/S
M.NATESAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who lost before the Revenue Court, is the petitioner before me.

(2.) THE landlord.s application for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rents for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 was resisted by the tenant on various grounds such as: (a) he has expended Rs. 1,900 for making a tamarind tope into a cultivating field (b) he paid Rs. 3,000 as earnest money to the managing trustee of the landlord (c) he had repaired the motor pumpset and spent for deepening the well at a cost of Rs. 1,500 (d) the manag-ing trustee received from him Rs. 140 for paying the electric bills (e) because of want of copious water supply from the well, he was not in a position to pay the arrears (f) because of the suit O.S. No. 205 of 1970 by the landlord disputing his status as a cultivating tenant, he was unable to pay the rent and (g) the claim is barred by time. However, ultimately, it turned out that the tenant admitted the arrears, but, only claimed adjustment referred to above. THE Revenue Court rejected the plea of adjustment, held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and gave the tenant three months time to pay the admitted arrears of rent.

(3.) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel for the tenant are that as the tenant has deposited all the arrears of rent pursuant to the order made in C.M.P. No. 7175 of 1981 for stay pending the revision, the tenant is entitled to have the delay condoned, as after all, the enactment is intended to protect the cultivating tenants, and also as the order of the Revenue Court has combined both the time for payment and the order of eviction, such an order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It has to be noticed that these two grounds are not raised in the grounds of revision however, they are permitted to be raised, because one relates to the validity of the order, while the other is in recognition of the present trend of law that even subsequent events can be taken into consideration.