R S MANI Vs. A PALANIMUTHU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, (Madras Act XXV of 1955), hereinafter referred as the Act, and is directed by the landlord against the order of Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, granting time to the respondents, cultivating tenants, under the Act, for depositing of the rent found to be in arrears. It is the contention of Mr. D. Ramaswami Iyengar, learned counsel or the petitioner, that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant time for Officer had no jurisdiction to grant time for deposit, and that, even if he had jurisdiction, there has been no judicial exercise of discretion.

(2.) TO appreciate the contention of behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to set out a few acts. The petitioner herein leased out the land in question, an extent of 1 acre and 80 cents bearing S. Nos. 711 and 712 in Nanjai Pugalur Village, Karur taluk, to the Respondents herein under the registered lease deed dated 13-61957 for a period of 3 years on an annual cash rental of Rs. 1215. After the expiry of the period of the contract, the tenants have continued in possession. A sum of rs. 100 is stated to be due as rent for the period of contract. The respondents-tenants failed to pay the rent for the subsequent period 1960-61 by the due date, that is, by 13-6-1961. Nor did they deposit the rent, as provided for under S. 3 (3) (a) of the Act, within a month after it fell due. , But the tenants deposited the rent in the revenue count on 26-9-1961 in P. No. 724 of 1961. This deposit, which was invalid, was opposed by the petitioner as not in accordance with law. In the application for making the deposit, the respondents stated that the father of the petitioner had issued notice claiming arrears of rent for the period 1960-61 that the petitioner himself had been demanding enhanced rent, and that, in these circumstances they had to take legal advice. The father of the petitioner was also made a party respondent to that application, though the deposit itself was made in the name of the petitioner. Following the decision of this Court Karuppanna goundar v. Sadays Kudumban, 1961-2 Mad LJ 185 the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the application, as no discretion has been given to the Revenue Court to entertain an application presented one month after the rent has fallen due. This order was passed on 4-11-1961. The amount in deposit was directed to be refunded to the respondents-tenants. It is after this petition by the tenants that the landlord, the present petitioner, filed the application under S. 3 (4) (a) of the act, on the order whereon granting time to the tenants for deposit of arrears the present revision has been filed. In his application for eviction the petitioner contended inter alia that the respondents having availed themselves of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act, the Revenue Divisional officer had no discretion to allow time to the cultivating tenants for depositing the arrears of rent payable, and secondly that, even on the merits, there was no bona fides whatsoever for the court to consider the grant of further time to the tenants. With reference to the claim of Rs. 100 due for the contract period which was also subject to the application for eviction, the tenants denied their liability. They pleaded that the claim was false and baseless. The tenants expressed their readiness to pay the rent of Rs. 1200 lawfully due by them. They stated that many times they contacted the petitioner, but that the petitioner demanded enhanced rent at Rs. 10 per cent and avoided receiving the agreed rent.

(3.) THE Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, found that an arrear of Rs. 100 was due for the lease period ending 13-6-1960. It is referred to the readiness of the tenants to pay the rent due for 1960-61. The petitioner himself sent a draft lease deed bearing the date 13-4-1960. In accordance with that the rent of Rs. 1200 would be the proper rent. In the circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer remarked that the claim before him by the landlord of rent at Rs. 10 per cent appeared to be a penalty for failure of the tenants to execute the lease deed in terms of the draft lease deed. Observing that