P. RAMASWAMY GOUNDERR AND ANOTHER Vs. PERIANNA MOOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision at the instance of the landlords against the order in E. A. No. 144 of 1956 on the file of the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli. That was an application under S. 3(4) (a) of The Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 as amended by the Madras Act XIV of 1956. The landlords stated that the respondent was their tenant in respect of Ac 1 -35 cents of wet land for which 17 bags of groundnut of 82 lbs. each and 23 kalama of paddy were to be paid as rent in Purattasi and Masi of the Tamil year. They further stated that the tenant was in arrears in regard to 34 bags of groundnut and 46 kalama of paddy and 24 bundles of hay They therefore prayed for eviction The respondent tenant denied the claim of the landlords and pleaded that he had paid the entire rent for year Jay a and that in regard to Manmatha year, that he had paid Rs. 75 to the landlords towards the rent of groundnut and deposited a certain sum of money, which were all that could be paid as rent for that year. The Revenue Court came to the conclusion that there was default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent but that in regard to the groundnut and paddy there was failure of crops and it therefore proceeded to grant a remission of 50 per cent of the paddy and groundnut rent. As regards hay, no remission was given. On that basis the Revenue Court directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 170 to the petitioners within a period of two months from the dale of its order The landlords have come forward with this revision petition. It is unnecessary to deal with the propriety of the order in so far as it says that the rent should be paid into the hands of the landlord. The landlord at any rate do not complain that the rent should have been paid into Court in accordance with the terms of the section. The only question argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that the rent Court had no jurisdiction to remit the agreed rent As the respondent was not represented in the case, I requested Mr. V Sundaresan, an Advocate of this Court, to represent his interest as amicus curiae Mr. Sundaresan has referred me to the various sections in. Act XXV of 1955 and also to a recent judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. in Ayee Chatram v. Ramabadra Vandayar : (1958) 1 M.L.J. 317 = 71 L.W. 272. That case arose under the Tanjore Tenants and Pannayal Protection Act XIV of 1952 The learned Judge observed at page 319 as follows:

(2.) IN a case which arises under Madras Act XXV of 1955, there is no provision even like S. 13 of Act XIV of 1955 The remedy, if any, of the tenant is to apply under the Fair Rent Act to have the fair rent fixed. What the Revenue Court has to do is to ascertain the extent of arrear of rent, having regard to the contract between the parties I am of opinion that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to grant the remission of the agreed rent, although there has been a failure of the monsoon or failure of the crops In the absence of any statutory authority, the remission is always a matter of grace by the landlord and the Revenue Court cannot have the power to remit the rent. The result is that the landlords would be entitled to the payment of the full arrears The tenant will therefore have to pay a sum of Rs. 226 in addition to what he has paid He will have two months from this date for such payment. This civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to caste. I thank Mr. V Sundarasan for the valuable assistance he gave in presenting the case on behalf of the respondent.