N. PERIASWAMI AND ORS. Vs. NADUVIDUTHI MUTHIAH CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions are filed by the various tenants of the respondent, and they raise a question under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, XXV of 1955.

(2.) THE petitioner in each of these Civil Revision Petitions took on lease certain lands for agricultural purposes from the respondent. The Revenue Court at Tirunelveli had fixed a fair rent in respect of Pishanam harvest of 1958. Under the order of the Revenue Court rent was payable in kind and not in cash. C.R.P. No. 1508 of 1958 may be taken as typical of the other Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) THE tenants contested the applications, stating that they had informed the landlord of the impending harvest a few days prior thereto, and that as they had yet time to pay the rent, the applications for eviction were premature. They also pleaded that they had deposited the proceeds of the rent in Court under Section 3(3) of the Act, and offered to pay any further sums that may be found due from them. The applications for eviction were filed on 3rd April, 1958. On 22nd April, 1958, the tenants deposited certain sums of money representing the rent payable by them, purporting to do the same under Section 3(3) of the Act. For instance the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1508 of 1958 deposited a sum of Rs. 433.83 nP. as representing the price of paddy of 12 kottahs, 4 marakkals and 2 padis and 18 bundles of hay. Applications were also filed under the aforesaid section for receiving the deposits. Both sets of applications, namely, the application for eviction at the instance of the lessor, and the applications for deposits under Section 3(3) of the Act, were heard, together and disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the applications, for eviction, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the tenants had failed to prove that they had intimated the landlord about the harvest, and also failed to make out that the applications for eviction were premature. The finding on this aspect of this case by the Revenue Divisional Officer is not, however, very clear. He also held that the tenants were in arrears, and directed each of the tenants to pay the: landlord rent in kind as fixed by the Rent Court in respect of the lands demised to the respective tenants within two months from the date of the order, failing which an order for eviction was to follow. In the proceedings, out of which C.R.P. No. 1508 arises, he directed the petitioner herein to pay the respondent -landlord the arrears in kind as per fair rent fixed, that is 12 kottahs, 4 marakkals and 2 padis, within two months from the date of the order, failing which he was to be evicted.