LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-114

V RAJAMANICKAM CHETTIAR Vs. T DAKSHINA MOORTHY

Decided On January 11, 1995
V RAJAMANICKAM CHETTIAR Appellant
V/S
T DAKSHINA MOORTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision was heard after listing it for final disposal to-day. The order passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Revenue court and the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants protection Act in P. No. 40 of 1988 dated 23. 4. 89 filed under Section 3 (4) (a) of the Act 25 of 1955 for the eviction of the tenant by name T. Dhakshinamoorthy by the landlord by name V. Rajamanickam Chettiar was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove the wilful default of the tenant in the payment of rent.

(2.) BY virtue of section 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act No. 25 of 1955, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlord on the ground that the rent for the demised land consists of 10 cents in survey No. 230/3 and an extent of 3. 20 acres situated in survey No. 231 in Azinjamangalam village in Nagapattinam Taluk at the rate of the compulsory rental of 78 kalams of paddy has not been paid by the tenant to the petitioner/landlord for two years, namely 1395 and 1396 faslis which correspond to the year 1985-86. The agreement between the landlord and the tenant was that irrespective of the yielding, the compulsory quantum of rent was 78 kalams of paddy to be paid every year and that was decided in o. S. No. 216 of 1971 as well as in O. S. No. 126 of 1986. However, forthe Fasli year 1395 two crops were taken by the tenant, but for the subsequent Fasli year 1396 there was only one crop was harvested by the tenant. Besides, there was a lease-deed, executed in the year 1966 fo r the Fasli 1376, which has been relied and marked as Ex. R-1. Accordingly, the rental for the demised land is 78 kalams payable during the season of harvesting at 38 kalams from'kuruvai' and at 40 kalams from Samba'

(3.) IN the context of the above rival position the only point which arises for consideration is whether the learned Special Deputy Collector under section 3 (4) (a) of the Act 17 of 1980 directing the respondent to deposit the said quantum of rent as provided under section 3 (4) (a) of the Act.