AHOBILA MADAM Vs. REVENUE COURT THANJAVUR THANJAVUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Madam is a public trust, represented by its power agent S.Sarangachariar. One Nagammal, mother of the second respondent herein was cultivating an extent of 2.34 acres in S.No. 459, Perugavazhndhan village, Mannargudi Taluk. As she was in arrears of rent, the petitioner Madam filed an application for eviction in P.T.No. 617 of 1987 under Sec.19(3) of Act 57 of 1961 and the said application was allowed and thereafter E.P.No. 19 of 1988 was filed for possession of the property and the said execution petition was ordered on 7.10.1988 pursuant to which the petitioner Madam took possession of the land on 21.12.1988. THEreafter, the said Nagammal filed an appeal seeking restoration of possession which was dismissed on 25.8.1989 by the Revenue Court, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Nagammal came forward with a C.R.P in C.R.P.No.2935 of 1990 on the file of this Court.

(2.) WHILESO, the second respondent (Vedaratnam) claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of Nagammal (who died on 29.10.1989 according to the petitioner herein and on 1.9.1989 according to the second respondent herein), filed an application for restoration of possession. The said application was resisted by the petitioner Madam on various grounds. The Revenue Court entertained the application and ordered restoration of possession to the 2nd respondent herein. It is against this order of the Revenue Court, the petitioner Madam has preferred the above revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner Madam is that the order impugned in this revision had been passed under Act 41 of 1989, which according to the petitioner was not in force either on the date of application or on tile date of passing of the order. Further, the said Act 41 of 1989 does not provide for any appeal or revision. It is also the case of the petitioner Madam that after they took possession of the land through the Revenue Court, the said lands were leased out to one Mathiazhagan, who is in possession of the lands.

(3.) I have perused the petition filed by the second respondent before the Revenue Court, Thanjavur for re-delivery of possession of the land in question. The second respondent has not stated anywhere in the said petition that he is contributing his physical labour. The claim was based only on the ground that he being the sole legal heir of his mother, he is entitled for the re-delivery of possession of the land in question and that he is not liable to be evicted pursuant to the provisions of Act 41 of 1989. As already seen, the Revenue Court passed an order on 7.10.1988 directing the tenant Nagammal to deliver peaceful possession of the land to the petitioner Mutt. The eviction was ordered on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of more than Rs.7,000 and odd. Pursuant to the order dated 7.10.1988, the possession was delivered to the petitioner mutt on 21.12.1988. It is also pertinent to note that the counter filed by the petitioner mutt before the Revenue Court. According to the petitioner mutt, the petition filed before the Revenue Court by the 2nd respondent is not maintainable and that the 2nd respondent Vedarathnam never cultivated the land and that he is not a tenant thereof. It is also further stated in the counter that once the cultivating tenant has been directed to be evicted and once possession was taken over by the land owner, there is no question of tenancy continuing either in the name of the said tenant or her legal heirs. This apart, the tenants have not chosen to deposit the huge arrears of rent which are due from Nagammal and therefore, there is no question of any restoration of possession. However, the Revenue Court, by its order dated 5.12.1990, has ordered the restoration of possession on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the second respondent which would not state that he is also contributing his physical labour for cultivating the land in question. It is also ordered that since the second respondent is the only heir of the deceased Nagammal he is entitled to entertain the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision has been filed.