CHINNA PILLAI Vs. A NOORJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 06.06.2002 in Petition No.759 of 2000, directing the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to pay arrears of rent for Faslis 1404 to 1409.

(2.) THE First Respondent is the owner of the land and the Revision Petitioner is a Lessee under her. THE First Respondent filed Petition No.759 of 2000 on the file of Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai under Section 3(4)(a) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") to recover arrears of rent for the periods from 1401 to 1409 " 9 Faslis. 2.2. THE Petitioner and the First Respondent made a joint endorsement on 11.04.2002 stating that 4 kalams for single crop and 6 kalams for double crop are to be measured subject to limitation. THE Revenue Court has ordered payment of arrears for Faslis 1404 to 1409 i.e., Rs.24,547/-, which is challenged in this Revision Petition. 2.3. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that on 11.04.2002, the parties made a joint endorsement on the Kuthagai payable only subject to limitation, but the Revenue Court without considering the period of limitation has erroneously passed the order, directing payment of arrears for the periods Fasli 1404 to 1409.

(3.) A reading of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act shows that on receipt of an application, the Revenue Court shall after giving reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representation shall hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the Application or dismissing it. As per the Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, the Revenue Court is not empowered to direct the Tenant to deposit the time barred arrears of rent. The Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act reads as under:-