KANDASWAMY GOUNDER Vs. VANNIMUTHU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a cultivating tenant. The respondents purchased the land and filed a petition for eviction on the ground of waste. Notice was sent through post and it came back with an endorsement 'refused'. The case was called on 8 -2 -1972 and then it was adjourned to 22 -2 - 1972. On 22 -2 -1972, the respondent in the eviction petition was called absent and he was set ex parte. An order of eviction was passed evicting the respondent forthwith. The respondents in this petition filed E. P. 6 of 1972 for execution. On 2 -8 -1972, the Tahsildar came and took forcible possession from the petitioner in this civil revision petition. Within two days thereafter the petitioner filed O. P. 20 of 1972 to set aside the ex parte order and also another petition for setting aside the order of eviction. On 14 -8 -1972, the Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms) Coimbatore, dismissed these petitions on the ground that delivery has already been taken and, as such, the petitions have become infructuous. Against the said order C. R. P. 2222 of 1972 was filed by the present petitioner and this High Court by its judgment dated 11 -7 -1973, held that the order passed by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore, is wrong and, as such, the High Court sent back the matter to the Authorised Officer directing him to decide the matter on merits. After it was sent back the Authorised Officer, holding that the service is proper and that the petitioner ceased to have any interest in the suit land, dismissed the original petition, Aggrieved by the said decision the tenant has filed the above civil revision petition.

(2.) MR . S. Ramalingam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the service deemed to have been effected on the petitioner herein is not sufficient and, as such, the order of eviction passed ex parte cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the order of eviction passed only on 2 -8 -1972, when forcible eviction was made by the Tahsildar and that the petitioner within two days filed the present original petition to aside the ex parte order of eviction passed against him. The learned counsel pointed out that Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act gives power to the authorised officer (Land Reforms) to apply the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as far as possible in respect of service of summons on the parties concerned. If that be so, the learned counsel submits that the court below has not followed the procedure laid down in Order 5, C.P.C. in respect of service of summons on the respondent in the main eviction petition. Mr. Nainar Sunderam, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords -respondents herein submitted that the service effected on the respondent in the main eviction petition by post wherein the postman has made an endorsement to the effect that the petitioner in this revision petition has refused to receive the summons, is sufficient service and, as such, the order of eviction passed against the petitioner herein is valid. The learned counsel also submitted that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied in a strict form to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. The wording is 'as far as possible' in the rule and, as such, the service must be deemed to be a proper service in this case. The learned counsel also stressed the point that the petitioner has ceased to have interest in the suit land, inasmuch as he has sub -leased the property to his brother Karuppuswami and the said Karuppusami has also filed an independent suit to have possession of the suit land from the landlord as a cultivating tenant.

(3.) IN Muthiah Nattar v. N.S. Ibrahim Rowther, (1967) 80 Mad LW 419 Ramaprasada Rao J. has stated as follows -