RAMUDU Vs. VARADARAJALYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. Proceedings were taken by tile landlord/respondent oil the ground that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rent. Apart from this, the landlord alleged that tile tenant had been drawing water from the well through an oil engine and thereby, caused damage to the well.

(2.) THE rent arrears fall under two periods, one from fasli 1383 to 1390 and another one from fasli 1391 to 1400. Fasli 1383 to 1390 fall for consideration in C. R. P. No. 520 of 2003 filed against the order in c. T. P. No. 175 of 1991. Fasli 1391 to 1400 fall for consideration in C R. P. No. 519 of 2003 filed against the order C. T. P. No. 77 of 1992. THE revision petitioner resisted the claim of the landlord oil the ground that notwithstanding the fact that the lands are in a rain-fed area, there was continuous drought condition, thereby causing failures and he could rake-only kambu and brinjals. THE revision Petitioner further submitted that he never raised casuarina in the said lands. THE revision petitioner also submitted that the land lord and h is brother insisted on the tenant to surrender their lands, which was resisted to by him and that with this ulterior motive only this petition had been filed alleging rent arrear.

(3.) AS regards the contention that the petitioner had not committed default, the Revenue Court had rejected the same on the premise that the petitioner/tenant had not adduced any evidence as regards the payment of the rent for the fasli in question. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not placed or referred to any material to substantiate this allegation that he had not committed any default on the rent due. In these circumstances the feeble plea on this score from the petitioner does not merit any acceptance;