PALANISWAMY GURUKKAL BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT SIVAPRAKASA KRISHNASWAMI GURUKKAL Vs. KANDAPPA GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has come before us as Alagiriswami J. who heard it in the first instance, found some difficulty in agreeing with the decision of Kailasam, J. in Nallathambi v/s. Nagaratnasami Devastanam, I.L.R. 1965 2 Mad 225, particularly in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Hansraj Gupta v/s. Official Liquidators of Dehra Dun etc Co. 54 All 1967. The civil revision petition raises an important question, whether a revenue court has jurisdiction in an application for eviction by a landlord to direct a cultivating tenant under S. 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955, to deposit the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of the fact that part of it may be time -barred and cannot be recovered in a suit for arrears of rent in a civil court. In the decision in Nallathambi v/s. Nagarathnasami Devastanam I.L.R., 1965 2 Mad 225. Kailasam, J. has referred to the several clauses of S. 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act, and found that in the absence of any provision restricting the arrears of rent to three years prior to the date of the application, there is no justification for holding that the arrears of rent which the revenue court could direct the tenant to pay or deposit shall be confined to the said period.

(2.) The scheme of S. 3 of the Act, as revealed from the several clauses found therein, also furnishes some guidance to answer the question involved in this civil revision petition. Sub -S. (1) of S. 3 of the Act provides that "no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a court or otherwise", except in accordance with the provisions of the succeeding sub -sections. Sub -S. (2) of the S. 3 of the Act provides that subject to the next succeeding sub -section, namely, Sub -S (3), cultivating tenants falling under that sub -section cannot claim the exemption from eviction conferred on cultivating tenants under S. 3(1) of the Act. One of such cultivating tenants is one who defaults to pay rent prior to, or after the commencement of the Act. In the areas where the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act 1952 was in force prior to the coming into force of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act 1956, a tenant if in arrears at the commencement of the Act, should pay such rent within six weeks after such commencement and in respect of subsequent rent, he should pay rent within a month after such rent becomes due. Cultivating tenants in other areas of the State of Madras, such as the one in the present case, should pay the arrears of rent accrued subsequent to 31st March 1954 within a month after the commencement of the Act and the rent payable alter the commencement of the Act within a month after such rent becomes due. Sub -S. (3) of S. 3 of the Act enables a cultivating tenant to make a deposit of the rent accrued due subsequent to 31st March 1954 within a month after the commencement of the Act and the rent accrued due after the commencement of the Act within a month after the date on which the rent accrued due This is in accordance with the terms of the earlier clauses. Thus having regard to Sub -S. (2) and (3) of S. 3 of the Act, a cultivating tenant shall be liable to be evicted if he failed to pay the rent accrued due after the commencement of the Act within a month after the date on which the rent accrued due.

(3.) Logically Sub -S. (4) or S. 3 provides a remedy for the landlord to file an application for eviction in the Revenue Court against such cultivating tenant who defaults to pay rent. Cl. (b) of Sub -S. (4) of S. 3 of the Act enables the Revenue Divisional Officer in the exercise of this judicial discretion to allow a cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under the Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct, and if the cultivating tenant deposits the same as directed he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under Sub -S. (3)(b) of S. 3 of the Act. Thus Sub -S. 4 (b) of S. 3 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to afford relief to a cultivating tenant, who not only failed to pay rent in time, but also failed to make the deposit as provided under Sub -S. (3) of S. 3 of the Act and thereby precluded himself from claiming exemption from eviction under Sub -S. 1 of S. 3 of the Act. This is analogous to the right of civil Courts to relieve a tenant against forfeiture clauses of lease deeds, whether under S. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, or under the general law.