PERIASAMI THEVAR Vs. NAMASIVAYAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act)'. The respondent herein is the landlord The cultivating tenant sought reliefs under the Act by filing a petition E.A. No. 380 of 1973 in O.S. No. 836 of 1971. on the file of the District Munsif of Sirkali. The said petition has been dismissed by the Court below and this revision is directed against the orders of the Court below.

(2.) IN this case there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. The current rent was paid by four money orders as follows. Money order relating to Exhibit A -2 was received by the landlord on 24th August, 1972 : money order relating to Exhibit A -5 was received on 24th August, 1972 : the money order relating to Exhibit A -4 was received on 8th February, 1973, and lastly the money order relating to Exhibit A3 was received on 12th February, 1973. There is no dispute that this last money order was sent on 10th February, 1973. This covers a sum of Rs. 7. There is also no dispute before me that the amounts covered by all the money orders as well as commissions deducted will go to make up the 'current rent'. A contention was raised in the court below that the money order commissions deducted are excessive It must be pointed out that no such objection seems to have been raised in the counter so as to afford an opportunity to the cultivating tenant to substantiate his case by production of the relevant money -order receipts. It will not be fair to consider this objection when no specific plea has been taken in the counter. Admittedly the landlord was a resident of Salem at the relevant point of time and the cultivating tenant was a resident of Sirkali. So there was no occasion for immediate and direct contact between the parties. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act contemplate three modes of discharge, namely, by payment, by deposit or by being deemed to have paid or deposited. The mode of deposit had not been adopted in the present case. The deeming provision does not directly come into play. The mode adopted is one of payment. The question is, where the parties are not residing in the same city or village and when there is no possibility of immediate and direct contact with each other, what should be the mode that could be conveniently adopted by the cultivating tenant in making the payment. In this case, the mode adopted is by sending the amounts by money order. Admittedly payments were received by the landlord more than once by money order. There was no protest by the landlord with reference to the mode of payment adopted. This mode of payment adopted by the cultivating tenant was acquiesced in and accepted by the landlord. There was no objection put forth by the landlord in the counter to the present application with reference to the mode adopted. When such is the case, I think it will be legitimate to draw an inference that the landlord accepted the mode of payment adopted by the tenant and an implied agreement with reference to such mode of payment can be spelt out from the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) MR . V. Sridevan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that once an implied agreement can be spelt out and when once it is found that the money order relating to Exhibit A -3 was in fact registered with the postal authorities on 10th February, 1973, it must be held that there was a proper payment within time and the post office must be held to be an age at of the landlord, and payment of money to the post office for the purpose of being sent to the landlord by money order will constitute payment within time, to the landlord.