RAMU REDDY Vs. KAMALANATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the questions involved in both the civil revision petitions are the same, a common judgment is rendered.

(2.) The respondents claiming to be cultivating tenants under the petitioner originally instituted O.S. Nos. 724 and 725 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tiruvallur, for a declaration that they are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties under the petitioner and for consequential reliefs. The said suits were dismissed by the learned District Munsif. Aggrieved against the said decisions, the respondents had preferred A.S. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1979 on the Sub-Court, Tiruvaller. After having presented the appeals, they rushed to the Revenue Court with two applications, C.T.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1981, praying for leave for depositing the rents into the Revenue Court. The petitioner came forward with I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1982 respectively in C.T.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1981 with a request to the Revenue Court that pending the appeals, A.S. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1979, the trial of the proceedings before it should be stayed. The Revenue Court dismissed the said two applications and these revisions are against the said order of dismissal passed by the Revenue Court.

(3.) At the outset, it is necessary to notice that it is the alleged tenants who initiated proceedings in the civil Court, viz., O.S. Nos. 724 and 725 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tiruvallur, for a declaration that they are the cultivating tenants under the petitioner in respect of the two different sets of properties. Having lost the suits, they were obliged to prefer two appeals as already stated. None-the-less, they had approached the Revenue Court for permission to deposit the arrears of rent under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, XV of 1980. It is needless to state that unless the respondents are cultivating tenants, they are not entitled to enter the portals of the Revenue Court. Now, the finding of the learned District Munsif in the two suits referred to above is that they are not cultivating tenants as on the date of the institution of the two suits. While so, if the Revenue Court were to proceed with the disposal of these two petitions, C.T.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1981, it is necessary to find whether the respondents herein are cultivating tenants or not. If it were to reach a finding contrary to that of the civil Court, there would not be any comity between the two Courts. In my view such an incongruous situation should not be permitted to occur.