K S A SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR Vs. SENTHILKUMAR MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Revenue Court, Lalgudi, allowing a petition filed under S. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act No. 41 of 1989.

(2.) IT appears one Periasamy was the tenant under the revision petitioner landlord. The eviction petition was filed against him, and a decree was passed on the ground of arrears of rent, and in pursuance of that he was evicted on 23.4.1988. Subsequently he died on 3.5.1988. Thereafter his heirs who are minors have filed the application under S. 7 of the Act 41 of 1989. According to them they have already deposited the arrears in R.A. No. 1588 of 1990.

(3.) NOW, the question that is raised in the Civil Revision Petition by the revision petitioner is that the petitioners who are minors cannot contend that they are the cultivating tenants and therefore the petition by them is incompetent. On a careful consideration I find that this contention of the learned counsel appears to have all force. A reading of S. 7 of the Act 41 of 1969 clearly shows that a petition for restoration can be filed by any tenant who had been evicted from the land. The tenant who had been evicted from the land is Periyasamy. Therefore the present petitioners i.e., his minor children are not cultivating tenants who had been evicted from the land. Hence the petition filed by them appears to be incompetent.