ALIMAUMMAL Vs. KALIAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by Revenue Court, Karaikal, in O.P. No. 17 of 1985 on 16.2.89. The O.P is a petition filed under section 3 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The Petitioner has filed the said application contending that the respondent had entered into a lease agreement for cultivation of 1H. 22A. 54 Ca o wet land situated at Oduthurai Village agreeing to pay 73 kalams of paddy every year and that he has not paid the rent from 1977 to 1985. The prayer in t he petition is for an order of for payment of arrears and in default for eviction. The respondent resisted the same by contending that there is only an oral agreement and the rent to be paid there is only a waram basis and there is no arrears at all. The Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court after the trial, has fixed the fair rent in respect of the property taken on lease by the tenant and on the ground that the tenant has paid more than the fair rent which he has arrived at as per ?Adangal? there is no arrears and dismissed the application. Aggrieved on the said order, the landlord has filed the revision petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. R. Thirugnanam contends that the order passed by the Revenue Court is one for which power is not vested with the Revenue Court, that the Revenue Court has no power to fix any fair rent and the finding of the Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court that the tenant has paid more than the fair rent fixed by him is erroneous and is liable to be act aside. THE learned counsel has invited the attention of this court to Section 10(1) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenant (Payment of Fair Rent) Act and has argued that notwithstanding the fact that any agreement between a land owner and cultivating tenant either party may apply to the Rent Court on payment of fees prescribed for fixation of fair rent and it is only the Rent Court which has got jurisdiction to fix fair rent in respect of the lease property and the Revenue Court is not empowered to fix any fair rent. THE above Section 10(1) is under the heading ?Application of Rent Courts and Appeals to the Rent Tribunals?. THErefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that it is only the Rent Court which has got jurisdiction to fix the fair rent is a tenable one. THE learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4(a) and (b) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 and would argue that under the said Act, the Revenue Court has to decide whether there is any arrears of rent giving due consideration of the rival submissions of the landlord and the tenant and passed an order on the evidence available and it is not open for the Revenue Court to fix the fair rent. I am in entire agreement with the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on this aspect also. THErefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the order passed by the Revenue Court dismissing the application filed by the landlord on the ground that the tenant has paid more than the fair rent is erroneous, since the Revenue Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in fixing the fair rent and then deciding the question whether there is any arrears or not. I am of the opinion that the revision petition has to be allowed, and the matter is to be remitted to the trial court, namely, the Revenue Court, Karaikal, with a direction to the Presiding Officer to decide whether there is any arrears of rent or not on the rival contentions of the landlord and the tenant giving them sufficient opportunity to let in oral and documentary evidence in support or their contentions.