THAMIRASSU Vs. KAMALATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 3 (4) (a) and (6) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 (IX of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reads as follows:

(2.) The case of landlady-petitioner before the Revenue Court, Karaikal was as follows: The tenant orally undertook to measure 70 kalams of paddy both in Kuruvai and Taladi. In case of natural calamities, the tenant undertook to measure the paddy on waram basis. The lands were originally leased out to the respondent (tenant) by the husband of the petitioner and after his demise, the respondent was measuring paddy to the petitioner since she is the only legal heir of her husband. For the year 1973-74, the respondent did not invite the petitioner for harvest and he measured only 48 kalams of paddy leaving 28 kalams of paddy as arrears and for the year 1974-75, the respondent conducted harvest and carried away the entire paddy, without paying anything to the petitioner. In the aggregate, the respondent has to measure 98 kalams of paddy for 1973-74 and 1974-75. The non-payment is wilful and wanton. The respondent has conducted harvest of bumper crops. When the petitioner asked for the payment of rent, the respondent told her that he would consider the same. The petitioner therefore prayed for the eviction of the respondent tenant.

(3.) On the other hand, in his counter, the respondent had inter alia contended that he did not undertake orally to measure 70 kalams of paddy both in Kuruvai and Thaladi. He is cultivating the lands on waram basis for the past 25 years. According to the lease agreement, the respondent informed about the harvest in the year 1973-74, and Thiru Surya-narayana Iyer, the petitioners brother-in-law was present there both for Kuruvai and Thaladi. He took 2|3rd share due to the petitioner from the threshing floor itself and therefore the allegation of arrears for 28 kalams of paddy is false. For the year 1974-75, Thiru Vaitha Iyer and Ramu Iyer were present at the time of Kuruvai harvest on behalf of the petitioner. 28 kalams of kuruvai paddy representing 2|3 share of the petitioner were measured to the Marketing Society, Nedunagadu in the name of the petitioner. She has collected the amount. For the Thaladi crops, the Kariasthar of the sister of the petitioner was present there on her beha1f and took 24 kalams of paddy being 2|3 share due to the petitioner, measured them to Balakrishna Nadar Mill and collected the amount. Therefore, the allegation of nonpayment for the year 1974-75 towards paddy is false. She requested the respondent to surrender the lands to her but the respondent turned down her request. Consequently, the petitioner, aggrieved by this, filed this false petition, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.