JANAKI AMMAL Vs. MUTHIAH THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order passed in T.C.T.P. No. 66 of 1972 dated 30th March, 1974 on the file of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The said petition was filed by the tenant under Section 3 (3) and Rule 3 of Act XXV of 1955 depositing Rs. 540 towards the rent payable to the landlord for one year from 1st July, 1971. The prayer in that petition is that the landlord may be directed to receive the rent deposited. This petition is in accordance with Section 3 (3) of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 which says that:

(2.) WHILE the application was pending, the tenant invoked the provisions of Act XXI of 1972 in the open Court to the knowledge of the respondent, orally and prayed that inasmuch as the rent due for the fasli year commencing from 1st July, 1971 and ending with 30th June, 1972 has been paid by the petitioner (tenant) it should be deemed to be current rent deposited by the petitioner. On this representation the landlord, who is the petitioner herein, contended that the scopes contemplated under Act XXV of 1955 and Act XXI of 1972 are different and as such the petitioner (tenant) cannot be given relief under Act XXI of 1972. The Authorised Officer, holding that the deposit made by the petitioner (tenant) is in accordance with the lease agreement, and also observing that the landlord had notice of the prayer made by the tenant to invoke the provisions of Act XXI of 1972, granted the relief to the tenant under Act XXI of 1972.

(3.) IT is clear from the facts of this case that the tenant made representation to the Court in virtue of Act XXI of 1972 that he may be given relief inasmuch as he has paid the agreed rent for the period 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972 on 27th June, 1972. Actually the Act XXI of 1972 came into force only on nth August, 1972. At that time the petition was pending. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Authorised Officer to the effect that the prayer made by the tenant can be taken as an application filed under Act XXI of 1972. In effect, it means that the Authorised Officer converted the application under Section 3 (3) of Act XXV of 1955 into one under Act XXI of 1972. It is clear from the intention of the Legislature that these Acts are provided to benefit the cultivating tenants. To direct the tenant to file a separate application technically, will be going behind the spirit of the legislations intended to benefit the cultivating tenants. I am of the view that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the Authorised Officer converting the application filed under Section 3 (3) of the Act XXV of 1955 into one filed under Act XXI of 1972, even though it has not been so stated in such specific terms.