RENGANATHA IYER Vs. PAKIRIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord under the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the cultivating tenant under the Act. The cultivating tenant sought reliefs under the Act by depositing certain amounts. The landlord raised various contentions before the Revenue Court, Mayuram, where the proceedings were initiated and agitated. The very same contentions are being put forth in this Court by the landlord I find from the records of the case that a cyclostyled form has been adopted by the court below in passing orders in such proceedings, whereby the case of the cultivating tenant has been accepted. I also find that witnesses have been examined in this case and the court below has not adverted to either the evidence or the other materials which would be very relevant for a consideration of The questions involved. A bare statement that the respondent's objection is overruled and therefore the petition is allowed, will not be a satisfactory way of disposing of a case arising under the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972. There has got to be a full -fledged consideration as to whether the amounts deposited represent the correct current rent within the meaning of the Act and whether such deposits have been made within the time stipulated under the Act, and if not whether indulgence should be shown to the cultivating tenant by granting further time within the stipulated time as laid down by the decisions of this Court. This has not at all been done by the court below and in this view. I am inclined to interfere in revision and accordingly this revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Court, Mayuram, for a consideration afresh of the matter in the light of the above observations. There will be no order as to costs is this revision.