A K KOTHANDARAMA RAO Vs. VENKATACHALA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in O.P. No. 294 of 1987 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) Coimbatore. Short facts are : The revision Petitioner had filed a petition under sub-section (a) of Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act against the respondent praying eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from faslis 1383 to 1397, which is valued at Rs. 70,125/-. That was resisted by the respondent on the ground that for the three faslis immediately preceding the petition, the value of the arrears of rent payable was Rs. 9,450/-, that during this period Rs. 4,725/- was paid and balance was only Rs. 4,725/- and that he is prepared to pay whatever be the value of the arrears of rent payable by the respondent. After enquiry, the Special Deputy Collector had found that the respondent is liable to pay Rs. 9,200/- towards the value of arrears of lease paddy for three years, preceding the petition and that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent had paid a total sum of Rs. 20,475/- and hence, there was no arrears of rent, as on the date of passing of the order and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in the Court below has come forward with this revision.

(2.) Mr. Hajee P.K. Jamal Mohamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that there was arrears of lease paddy for a period of 15 years, that atleast the tenant should be directed to pay the arrears of rent after 1976. He would further submit that though the rent for the period, prior to three years has become barred by time under the new Limitation Act, yet for the purpose of arriving at the arrears of rent, and for the purpose of passing order of eviction, the entire period of arrears should be taken into account. He would finally submit that at any rate, the proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act is vitiated and ultra vires of the Constitution, since it hits Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects.