MARIYAYEE AMMAL Vs. VADAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in the civil revision petition are cultivating 1 acre 92 cents in S. F. No. 24/ 2 of Nachikurichi village belonging to the revision petitioner. THE latter instituted O. S. No. 362 of 1988 in the court of Sub Judge of Trichy for recovery for a sum of Rs. 23,068 due to her by way of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the respondents filed i. A. No. 1. 33 of 1992 under Sec. 5 (2) or under Sec. 7 (2), of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1990 seeking to deposit the arrears of rent with prayer to dismiss the suit. THE revision petitioner resisted that application contending that since the respondents have raised plantain crops without her prior consent, she has filed the suit for damages only. THEre was no privity of contract between them for raising plantain crops. Simply because they have filed an application under Act 38 of 1990, before the Revenue Court , they cannot be absolved of their liability to pay the suit amount. THE deposit before the Revenue Court was received only without prejudice to the suit claim by the plaintiff and so the suit cannot be dismissed for the reason set out in the application. Learned Sub Judge held that the suit was liable to be dismissed and allowed the application. This order is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submits at the out set that the suit in O. S. No. 362 of 1988 was not one for recovery of arrears of rent or for eviction, but it was for the recovery of damages for use and occupation and there existed no relationship landlord and the tenant between them. A perusal of the averments in the plaint would indicate that the respondents are cultivating the suit land under the revision petitioner is not disputed. Her only grievance is that they have raised banana crops unauthorisedly and as such they are liable to pay damages. There is no substance in this argument since the respondents herein are statutory tenants. That they have started to raise plantain crops from 1986-87 docs not put an end to them relationship of landlord and tenant.