BOORASAMY PADAYACHI Vs. MUTHUKUMARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1646 of 1989 is the tenant with respect to the land owned by the respondent in that civil revision petition of an extent of 10. 17 acres in S. Nos. 4/1, 4/2 and 148/2, Variyangaval village, udayarpalayam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. THE landlord is the petitioner in c. R. P. No. 2199 of 1993 and the tenant is the respondent therein. THE landlord is the applicant in Contempt Application No. 33 5 of 1993. THE respondents there are: (1) Mr. B. Vittal, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer and (2) the tenant. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as landlord, tenant and the Revenue Divisional Officer (R. D. O.)

(2.) THE landlord filed P. No. 808 of 1988 on the file of the Revenue Court , lalgudi, for eviction of the tenant, under Sec. 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955 ). He had therein that the tenant agreed to pay one-half of the yield every year and he estimated that 25 bags would be the yield every year. Thus, he claimed a share of 12 1/2 bags per year. According to the. petition, the rent was not paid for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. He claimed a total of 25 bags and working out at the rate of rs. 1,000 per bag, he claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of arrears of rent.

(3.) ON the same date of the filing of the revision petition, the landlord filed Contempt Application No. 335 of 1993 against the revenue Divisional Officer and the tenant for punishing them either with fine or imprisonment for the disobedience of the orders of this Court in C. M. P. No. 8149 of 1989 in C. R. P. 1646 of 1989 dated 18. 8. 1989. Notice was issued on 11. 3. 1994 in the said application. Both the respondents have filed their counter-affidavits in that matter.