R SINGARAVELU PILLAI Vs. S B SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cultivating tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. It appears that the first respondent lanlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of Tents, on 1st September, 1981. Notice of the application was served on the petitioner herein on 4th September, 1981, giving 29th September, 1981 as the date of hearing. On 29th September, 1981, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner tenant. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time and it appears from the records that the petitioner herein appeared on 16th October, 1981, and sought for time to engage a counsel. The matter was adjourned to 13th November, 1981, finally. Again, it was adjourned to 17th November, 1981. When the Revenue Court found that the petitioner had neither filed vakalat nor appeared before Court, the petitioner was set ex parte on 17th November, 1981, and the matter was adjourned for filing of proof of affidavit to 20th November, 1981. On 20th November, 1981, proof of affidavit was filed and again the petitioner was called absent and a preliminary order was passed on 24th November, 1981. In the preliminary order, it was found that the petitioner was liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord, the first respondent herein, and the preliminary order directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears on or before 7th December, 1981. In the event of default, an order of eviction was directed to follow. There was a further direction to call the application on 8th December, 1981. In the meanwhile it appears that the petitioner preferred I.A. No. 128 of 1981 to set aside the preliminary order, dated 24th November, 1981. In that application, a conditional order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent, of the arrears. Since that was not complied with by the petitioner, that application was rejected on 5th February, 1982. As stated earlier, following the preliminary order, on 8th December, 1981, the matter was taken up and the Revenue Court passed the following Order:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Revenue Court suffers from many infirmities. The learned counsel challenges the order, dated 24th November, 1981, on various grounds. In support of that, he placed reliance on a judgment reported in Chinnamarakathiyan v. Ayyavoo1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the petitioner did not appear before Court, it is the duty of the Court to go into the facts and find out how the arrears were calculated and after applying its mind, preliminary order should be passed. While passing such orders, the Revenue Court must take into account the relative hardships that may be caused to the tenant in directing him to deposit the arrears. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent took out a preliminary objection contending that when the order, dated 24th November, 1981, has been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the legality of that order inasmuch as the present revision is filed against the order of the Revenue Court dated 8th December, 1981, which is a separate order. In support of that, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran1. In paragraph 23 the Division Bench has observed as follows:

(3.) So far as the order, dated 8th December, 1981, against which the present revision petition is filed, it is based on the preliminary order, where under the petitioner was given time to pay the arrears. Thereafter, there is nothing for the Revenue Court to consider, as section 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, the relevant portion of which is set out hereunder, is as follows: