KUNJU PADAYACHI Vs. RAHMATHUNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a matter arising under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred as the ' Act'). Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-owner filed petition under sec. 3 (4) (A) of the Act for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent for faslis 1402 to 1404. The revision petitioner disputed the quantum and also his liability to give straw bundles and blackgram. He also pleaded inability to measure on account of damage to crops due to floods. The Revenue Court passed an interim order on 20. 9. 1995 directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,851 on or before 29. 10. 1995 and report compliance on 30. 10. 1995. On the application of the revision petitioner, time was extended on 30. 10. 1995 till 8. 11. 1995. On 8. 11. 1995 revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 400 and prayed for extension of time. But the Revenue court refused to grant further time and ordered eviction on the same day. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. At the time of admission, this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit the balance amount of arrears of rent to the credit of P. No. 384 of 1995 on the file of the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai, within a week therefrom. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the conditional order had been complied with. It is also submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that the Revenue Court ought to have seen that the revision petitioner had acted bona fide and had made part payment and sought extension of time and the Revenue Court ought to have granted extension of time. Apart from that, it is also submitted that the Revenue Court grievously erred in ordering eviction on the very same day on which payment of arrears had to be made. In other words, the Revenue Court ought to have waited for the day to pass before passing final orders of eviction.

(2.) THE learned counsel relied on the decisions of this court reported in Ganapathy Padayachi v. Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika gnanasambanda Pandarsannadhi, etc. , (1965)2 M. L. J. 14 and Ganapathy THEvar v. THE Executive Officer, (1984)2 M. L. J. 219. THE learned counsel also made a point of the fact that pending revision petition, the entire arrears has been paid as directed by this Court and the order of eviction passed must be set aside.

(3.) IN Chinnammarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and another v. Ayyavoo Perianna Gounder, (1983)1 M. L. J. (S. C.) 17. A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 137, the question whether the High Court would have jurisdiction to prescribe its own time calling upon the tenant to deposit the rent to repair the default on his part, was left open. Though in the same decision, the Supreme Court observed that the Act is a beneficient legislation and the court should adopt that construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory.