MARIYAYEE AMMAL Vs. JANAB MOHAMMED SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are at the instance of a cultivating tenant who is in enjoyment of two different portions of the same survey number under the same landlord.

(2.) THE petition was filed for eviction under S. 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act for non-payment of rent for the year 1980-81. THE petitioner herein had filed a counter in the petition for eviction on 12. 11. 1981 contesting the application. THE petition was not taken up for hearing as the Revenue Court had been abolished. THE Revenue Court was re-constituted some time in December, 1985. Notices were issued to counsel on record. THE matter was posted to 14. 10. 1986 and the advocate for the petitioner had received notice on 18. 9. 1986. As she was not present on 14. 10. 1986, the matter was adjourned to 28. 10. 1986, 18. 11. 1986, 21. 11. 1986, 9. 12. 1986, 19. 12. 1986, 13. 1. 1987 and finally to 20. 1. 1987. On all these dates neither the petitioner nor her counsel was present in Court. On 20. 1. 1987, the petitioner was set ex parte and the case was adjourned for evidence on the side of the respondent. On 27. 1. 1987, the responded was examined in chief and the case was adjournal for orders. On 17. 3. 1987 the Revenue Court passed an order directing the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,160 into the Treasury and produce the challan before the Court on or before 30. 4. 1987.

(3.) S. 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's protection Act reads thus: "on receipt of such application, the Revenue divisional Officer shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representations, hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it and in a case falling under clause (a) (or Clause (aa)) of sub-S. (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in sub-S. (3), the Revenue Divisional Officer may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct. If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under sub-S. (3) (b ). If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order for eviction. " There is no provision in the Rules making the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to the proceedings for execution of the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. R. 8 of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's protection Act is to the effect that every Court constituted under the Act shall have the power exercisable by a civil Court in the trial of the suits and the proceedings of the Court shall be summary and shall as far as possible be governed by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code with regard to matters enumerated therein Execution of the order passed by the Revenue Court is not one of the matters enumerated in R. 8. R. 19 of the Rules is as follows: "any order, decision or award passed by the Revenue divisional Officer under the Act shall be enforceable by an Officer of the revenue Department not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector. " From a reading of S. 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating tenant's Protection Act along with R. 10, it follows that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules for filing a separate execution petition for executing the orders passed by the Revenue Court. Once an order of eviction is passed by the Revenue Court, it can be straightaway executed by an officer of the Revenue Department not lower in rank than a Revenue Inspector, on production of such order of eviction. The entire proceedings being summary, there is no necessity for a separate petition for execution or for adopting a procedure similar to the one found in 0. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.