M PALANI GOUNDER Vs. S P THANGAVEL GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who was unsuccessful before the Revenue Court, coimbatore, has preferred this revision challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the said court.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: the respondent herein has filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner herein under S. 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenantso"= Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following allegations. (For convenience sake, the array of parties before the lower court is adopted in this revision ). THE petitioner before the lower court became entitled to the property in question by virtue of the settlement deed dated 20-8-1976. He, after exchange of notice, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in O. S. No. 493 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, udumalpet,against the respondent, and the same was later transferred to District Munsif Court on the ground that he unlawfully trespassed into the suit property. THE said suit was resisted by the respondent-tenant on the ground that he is a tenant of the suit property and that the alleged trespass is false. Though the suit was decreed by the trial court, the same was reversed on appeal by the Sub-Court, udumalpet in A. S. No. 30 of 1983 and the same was confirmed in S. A. No. 2276 of 1983. By virtue of the above proceedings, the respondent was recognized as tenant of the petition mentioned property. It is alleged that the respondent, though enjoyed the property, had not paid arrears of lease. Though the respondent contended that the lease amount was only Rs. 500 per annum and the same was paid to the settler, the petitioner denied the said quantum of rent and payment and he claimed arrears of rent for nine years from the year 1976 to the period ending with Purattasi 1985 at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per annum, on the ground that the income from the petition mentioned property would be Rs. 10,000.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though the proviso was inserted to S. 3 (4) of the act and the claim is barred by limitation ,the liability to pay the rent is not extinguished and hence the order cannot be said to be in any way illegal. Further, in view of the income from the property, the quantum of rent fixed by the revenue Court at Rs. 2,000 cannot be said to be exorbitant.