PALANISWAMY GURUKKAL BY POWER-OF-ATTORNEY AGENT SIVAPRAKASA KRISHNASWAMY GURUKKAL Vs. KANDAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has come before us as Alagiriswamy, J., who heard it in the first instance, found some difficulty in agreeing with the decision of Kailasam, J. in Nallathambi v. Nagarathnaswamy Devasthanam, (1965) 2 M.L.J. 386 :, I.L.R. (1965) 2 Mad, particularly in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidator of Dehra Dun etc. Company, I.L.R. (1932) All. 1067. The Civil Revision Petition raises an important question, whether a revenue Court has jurisdiction in an application for eviction by a landlord to direct a cultivating tenant under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1055, to deposit the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of the fact that part of it may be time -barred and cannot be recovered in a suit for arrears of rent in a civil Court.

(2.) IN the decision in Nallathambi v. Nagarathnaswamy Devasthanam, (1965) 2 M.L.J. 386;, I.L.R. (1965) Mad. 225, Kailasam, J., has referred to the several clauses of Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and found that in the absence of any provision restricting the arrears of rent to three years prior to the date of the application, there is no justification for holding that the arrears of rent which the revenue Court could direct the tenant to pay or deposit shall be confined to the said period.

(3.) LOGICALLY Sub -section (4) of Section 3 provides a remedy for the landlord to file an application for eviction in the Revenue Court against such cultivating tenant who defaults to pay rent. Clause (b) of Sub -section (4) of Section 3 of the Act enables the Revenue Divisional Officer in the exercise of his judicial discretion to allow a cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under the Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct, and if the cultivating tenant deposits the same as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under Sub -section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Act. Thus Sub -section (4)(b) of Section 3 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to afford relief to a cultivating tenant, who not only failed to pay rent in time, but also failed to make the deposit as provided Under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the Act and thereby precluded himself from claiming exemption from eviction under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. This is analogous to the right of civil Courts to relieve a tenant against forfeiture clauses of lease deeds, whether under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, or under the general law.