K. PERIASWAMY AMBALAM Vs. PICHAYAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of appeals from two suit O.S. Nos. 522 of 1970 and 72 of 1970 respectively in the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai. The suits were filed for recovery of arrears of rent from one Karuppanan Ambalam in respect of 2 acres 12 cents and 2 acres 18 cents of land belonging to the plaintiffs and leased to the said Karuppanan Ambalam at the rate of 16 bags of paddy of 48 Madras measures in each case. The suits related to the arrears of rent for faslis 1378 and 1379. Karuppanan Ambalam contended that the rent was only 12 bags of paddy of 48 Madras measures in each case, and when he paid the rent for faslis 1378 and 1379 the plaintiffs refused to receive the same giving false hopes to him that the amount may be settled and adjusted in the sale transaction negotiated between the parties. The trial Court held that the rent payable was 16 bags of paddy and decreed the suit for the value thereof, namely, Rs. 1,280 in each suit.

(2.) KARUPPANAN Ambalam filed two appeals and he died during the pendency of those appeals, and his legal representatives have been brought on record. During the pendency of the appeals I.A. Nos. 564 and 565 of 1973 were filed taking advantage of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972, which came to be enacted subsequent to the disposal of the suits and before the disposal of the appeals. The attempt of the tenants was to deposit the arrears of rent for fasli 1381 so that the earlier rent could be taken to have been wiped out in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972. The plaintiffs contended that the deposit of the value of 12 kalams of paddy in each case was not proper so as to discharge the arrears, and that the proper rent was 16 kalams of paddy in each of the cases. According to the plaintiffs, the value of the paddy deposited by the tenants did not represent the market value and was much less. It was, therefore, contended that the tenants bad not complied with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 so that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for in the suits.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that this a case in which the provisions of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 would apply, that in this case, there is a bona fide dispute as to the amount to be deposited and that in such a case, the Court was bound to grant further time for making up the deficiency in deposit. For the respondents, the submission was that this is a case in which the actual rent had already been fixed under a decree as between the parties, against which there was no appeal, and that this is not a case in which the tenant would be entitled to any benefit under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 after he had failed to deposit the entire rent for fasli 1381 within the period stipulated under the Act.