K R VELUCHAMY NAIDU Vs. K VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in all these civil revision petitions are the same. THEy are landlord and tenant in respect of the land covered by these proceedings. C. R. P. No. 1441 of 1992 is directed against the order passed in r. A. No. 1543 of 1990 on the file of the Revenue Court, Salem at Udumalpet in which the Revenue Court had passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 (Act 38 of 1990) which I shall hereinafter refer to as the'rent relief Act.'

(2.) C. R. P. Nos. 3885 and 4255 of 1987 are filed by the tenant and landlord respectively against the order passed in O. P. No. 35 of 1985, in which the Revenue Court had ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1976-77 to 1983-84, disallowing the landlord's case that there was arrears of rent from 1970-71 onwards. C. R. P. No. 4068 of. 1986 is directed against the order passed in O. P. No. 22 of 1979 by the Revenue Court in which the Revenue Court has passed an order of eviction on the ground that there was arrears of rent for 1976-77.

(3.) IN the instant case, as per the calculation made in the petition in R. A. No. 1543 of 1990 the total arrears for the period from 1977-78 to 1988-89 has been stated and the total has been arrived at as rs. 44,500 and then, the amounts already paid by way of deposit in earlier proceedings is shown as Rs. 44,620 and it is stated that entire arrears is paid. The mode of calculation was not one-fourth of the arrears that was remaining unpaid after adjusting the payments made for the earlier arrears. That is clearly against the mode of calculation held by this Court in M. Palanichanry v. Muthia Pillai, (1992)1 L. W. 286. So, on this ground also the view of the revenue Court that l/4th arrears of rent was paid is erroneous.