SIVAGNANAM Vs. NATESAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in m. P. No. 16 of 1993 in P. No. 850 of 1992. The Cultivating tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Sec. 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from eviction) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as &#65533the Act'). The said eviction petition was filed on 20. 7. 1992. In the said petition, the landlord claimed that the rent is due for four years from 1988-89 to 1991-92, amounting to Rs. 25,935. The Revenue Court , on considering the facts, arising in this case directed the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,935 on or before 13. 5. 1993 and produce the challan before the court on 13. 5. 1993. Since the arrears of rent was not paid, M. P. No. 16 of 1993 was filed by the landlord on 22. 6. 1993 under Sec. 3 (4) (b) of the Act. The order of eviction was passed in this application on 13. 9. 1993, since a sum of rs. 25,935 was not deposited as directed earlier. It is against that order, the tenant is in revision before this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the tenant/ petitioner herein submitted that even though the order of eviction was passed on 13. 9. 1993 in M. P. No. 16 of 1993, the tenant filed a petition on 21. 10. 1993, requesting the revenue Court to extend the time for vacating from the land and he also undertook to pay the entire arrears of rent of Rs. 25,935 on the same day. On the petition an order was passed by the Revenue Court, postponing the eviction till 27. 10. 1993. In the meanwhile, the tenant filed the present revision before this Court on 25. 10. 1993. In the present revision, while granting interim stay, this Court directed the petitioner/ tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent. The tenant deposited the entire arrears of Rs. 25,935 according to the order of this Court. In the above circumstances, it was submitted by the petitioner herein, that the entire arrears of rent was deposited in court during the operation of the stay of the order passed in M. P. No. 16 of 1993. It was, therefore, pleaded that inasmuch as the order passed by the Revenue Court was complied with, the eviction order passed by the revenue court is unsustainable. It is also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed in M. P. No. 16 of 1993 by the Revenue Court, postponing the order of eviction was not communicated to the petitioner herein.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the tenant without challenging the preliminary order passed in P. No. 850 of 1992, he cannot file a revision against the order passed in M. P. No. 16 of 1993. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that order passed in M. P. No. 16 of 1993 is consequential and, therefore, in a revision filed against the order passed in M. P. No. 16 of 1993, the tenant can challenge the order passed in P. No. 850 of 1992. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Singaravelu Pillai v. Subramania Kurukkal, 97 L. W. 200. According to the facts arising in that case, an ex parte preliminary order was passed by the Revenue Court in a petition for eviction filed on the ground of default in paying the arrears of rent, holding that the tenant was liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord and the preliminary order directed the tenant to deposit the arrears on or before a particular date and in the event of default, an order of eviction was directed to follow and there was a further direction to call the application again. An application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed in which a conditional order was passed and as the condition was not complied with, it was dismissed. Following the preliminary order, a final order for eviction was passed. This revision was preferred against the final order. It was contended for the respondent/ landlord that by way of a preliminary objection that when the preliminary order has been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the tenant petitioner to challenge the legality of that order inasmuch as the present revision was filed against the later order of the Revenue Court which was a separate order. On these facts, it was held as under :'so far as the order dated 8. 12. 1981 against which the present revision petition is filed, it is based on the preliminary order, whereunder the petitioner was given time to pay the arrears. Thereafter there is nothing for the Revenue Court to consider as Sec. 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act, the relevant portion of which is set out hereunder, is as follows : ". . . . . . if the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under Sub-sec. (3) (b ). If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional officer shall pass an order of eviction. &quot In the light of the above extracted provision the order of the Revenue Court cannot be said to be illegal calling for interference under Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the preliminary order is illegal in view of the judgment of the supreme Court in Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 137, the final order dated 8. 12. 1981 cannot stand. I am unable-to agree. Assuming without conceding that the order, dated 24. 11. 1981 is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, it will be at the most an illegal one and it cannot be considered to be non est in law. Unless that order is set aside and in the manner known to law, the order now challenged in the present revision petition cannot be said to be in any manner illegal. In the circumstances there are no merits in the civil revision petition and consequently, it is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. &quot Therefore, in the present case also, it is not open to the tenant/petitioner to challenge the order passed in P. No. 850 of 1992, against which no revision was filed. Thus the said order has become final.