M SURIYA PRABHA Vs. KARUPAYEE @ PAPAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking permission to deposit the rent for the period from 1999 - 2000 to 2001-2002 on the footing that she is the cultivating tenant in respect of the subject properties, the revision petitioner preferred an application under Section 3(b)(a) of Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 read with Rule 3 of Cultivating Tenants Protection Rules.

(2.) The said application having come to be dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy, by order, dated 04.02.2005 in P.No.275/2003 (Kulithalai), aggrieved over the same, the civil revision petition has been laid.

(3.) As seen from the case of the petitioner before the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy, the husband of the petitioner, namely, Marappan had taken the subject properties on lease as a cultivating tenant from his mother Ramayee Ammal on an annual rent of Rs.200/- for a period of five years under a registered Lease Deed and thereby cultivating the same by exercising his own physical labour and also that of his family members i.e., petitioner herein and further according to the case of the petitioner, after the death of her husband Marappan, she being his wife and their children have succeeded to the subject properties and the petitioner and her children arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy, had been cultivating the subject properties by exercising their own physical labour and thus, according to the petitioner, she is a cultivating tenant in respect of the subject properties and further according to her case, her right as a cultivating tenant in respect of the subject properties had been upheld in O.S.No.985 of 1992 preferred by the daughter of the first respondent, namely, Rajeswari, against the revision petitioner and others and thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents are estopped from disputing the petitioner's right as a cultivating tenant in respect of the subject properties and further, according to the petitioner, the rent has been paid upto 1992 and inasmuch as the erstwhile landlady Ramayee Ammal, mother of the first respondent, had refused to receive the rent sent by way of money order for the years 1992-1993 to 1996-1997, the petitioner preferred R.A.No.80 of 1999 under Challan No.38 as against the lessor and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the lessor Ramayee Ammal had died leaving behind her daughter, namely, first respondent herein and the children of her pre-deceased son Marappan, namely, children of the petitioner and the deceased Marappan. However, according to the case of the petitioner, the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy, had dismissed the above mentioned petition mistakenly as if no documentary proof has been placed by the petitioner to establish her leasehold right. It is also the case of the petitioner that challenging the said order, she had also preferred C.R.P.No.4146 of 2001. However, the said civil revision petition had come to be dismissed by upholding the view of the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy, i.e., that the petitioner has failed to establish her leasehold right in respect of the subject properties. The petitioner has got documentary evidence i.e., registered Lease Deed, dated 13.02.1988, in favour of her husband executed by Ramayee Ammal, mother of the first respondent and her case is also buttressed by Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.985 of 1992 and therefore, according to the petitioner, she being a cultivating tenant and entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, accordingly, preferred the above said application in P.No.275 of 2003 (Kulithalai) to hold and record that rent for the period from 1992-1993 to 2001-2002 has been paid and if any further amount is due from the petitioner, time may be granted to deposit the same.