RANGANATHAN Vs. RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is the 'landlord' within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act 21 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent herein claims himself to be a 'Cultivating tenant' within the meaning of the Act. Reliefs were asked for by the respondent herein under S.3 of the Act by filing a petition P. No. 479 of 1973 on the file of the Revenue Court, Mayuram, against the 'landlord'. The 'cultivating tenant' deposited a sum of Rs. 991.50 on 9th February 1973, which according to him represented the value of rent for the property in question for Fasli 1381 under the Act. The 'landlord' contested the claims of the 'cultivating tenant' stating inter alia that the deposit was inadequate, because grams were raised, and the value of the grams has not been included, and even otherwise the value of the paddy and straw has been worked out at a lesser rate. The Revenue Court found that the claim for value of the grams put forth by the 'landlord' is not tenable, because it has not been proved that the 'cultivating tenant' raised grams. With regard to the value of the paddy and straw, the Revenue Court held it must be Rs. 1051.50 and giving credit to the sum of Rs. 991.50 already deposited, the 'cultivating tenant' was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 60 and he was given time till 24th March 1974 to deposit this sum of Rs. 60 and report the matter on 25th March 1974. This order of the Revenue Court was passed on 23rd March 1974. The present revision has been preferred by the 'landlord' challenging the order of the Revenue Court. Thiru R. Balachander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in view of the pronouncements of this Court construing the provisions of the Act, the Revenue Court must be held to have no jurisdiction to grant time to the 'cultivating tenant' to make up the short -fall in the proper amount to be deposited, and in any event the 'cultivating tenant' was not bona fide in making the proper deposit and hence his application for reliefs under the provisions of the Act must be rejected.

(2.) It is true this court had occasion to consider the provisions of the Act, and in particular S.3 of the Act in some of the decisions, but in my opinion the import of and the principles deducible from the said decisions do not support the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It would be pertinent to extract S.3(i) of the Act to understand and appreciate the implications thereof - -