MUNIAPPAN Vs. HAZRATHUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady filed a petition for eviction under Scc.3(4) (a) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, Act 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). THE petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein in respect of the land belonging to the respondent in Survey No.505/92. THE tenant had taken the land on lease from the Predccessor-in-interest of the present landlady for agricultural purpose, particularly, for cultivation of paddy. THE present annual rent payable by the tenant to the landlady is Rs.2,500 and six salugais of paddy. According to the landlady, the rent, is payable in every month of Thai. On 4.2.1987 the tenant sent a draft for Rs.3,500 to the landlady along with a letter. In the letter it was stated that the rent of Rs.3,500was sent to the landlady, but the landlady refused to receive the same and returned the draft along with her letter. In the said letter, she has stated that two years rent is due from the tenant for the period 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986 and since the tenant has sent only Rs.3,500 the same was returned back. It was, therefore, pleaded that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Sec.3(2)(aa) of the Act.

(2.) THE landlady further stated that the land was leased to the tenant for the purpose of cultivation, but the tenant used the land and continues to use it for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural coming within the meaning of Sec.3(2)(b) & (c) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the tenant/ petitioner herein submitted as under:THE Revenue Court was not correct in holding that the rent is Rs.2,500 and six salugais of paddy every year. THE tenant is not in arrears of rent as alleged by the landlady. THE Revenue Court overlooked the payments made by the tenant's counsel to the landlady's counsel of a sum of Rs.2,500 on 30-.11-.1987 and a sum of Rs.5,000 on 29-.7-.1988. THE revenue court has committed an error of law in not granting time to the tenant as per Sec. 3(4) (b) of the Act so as to enable the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and as such the order is liable to be set aside.