Madras High Court
A.S.Mothilal vs Rajangam on 24 February, 2020
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2013
1.A.S.Mothilal
2.A.S.Ramesh (died)
3.A.S.Suresh
4.V.R.Chithra
5.A.R.Asha
6.A.R.Saranya
7.A.R.Sri Divya ... Petitioners
(Petitioners 5 to 7 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased second petitioner
vide Court order dated 06.12.2019 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5448 to 5451 of 2019)
vs.
Rajangam ... Respondent in all petitions
COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions is filed under
Section 6B and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection)
Act, r/w Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the
order dated 27.09.2013 passed in I.A.Nos.45 and 47 of 2012 and in
E.P.Nos.13 and 14 of 2012 in T.C.T.P.No.12 of 2000 and 23 of 2012,
respectively on the file of the Revenue Court (Special Deputy
Collector), Madurai thereby allow the present civil revision petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
(in all petitions)
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955.
2. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The petitioners herein are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. According to the landlords, since the respondent was in arrears of rent for the fasli years 1405 to 1407, they filed T.C.T.P.12 of 2000 seeking eviction of the respondent. The said petition was contested by the respondent on various grounds. Finally, an order came to be passed on 12.03.2012 directing the respondent to pay costs of 8 bags of paddy each weighing 65 Kilograms, each at the rate fixed by the Government for the current fasli within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the landlord was given liberty to take execution proceedings to vacate the tenant.
3. There was another proceedings in T.C.T.P.No.23 of 2007, which was filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the respondent for non-payment of rent for the fasli years 1414 to 1416. The same also came to be disposed of on 12.03.2012 with a direction to the tenant to pay the value of 24 bags of paddy, each weighing 65 2/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 kilograms at the rate fixed by the Government for the current fasli within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Similar liberty was given to the landlord to proceed with the execution, if the order is not complied with.
4. It is the common case of the parties that the copy of the order was received by the respondent / tenant on 03.05.2012. On the same date he has sent two demand drafts. One for Rs.5,000/- and another for Rs.15,000/- representing the cost of 8 bags and 24 bags of paddy. The landlords refused to receive the said demand drafts and they were returned. Hence, the tenant filed applications on 29.05.2012 seeking permission to deposit the said amounts before the Court, which were numbered as I.A.Nos.45 and 47 of 2012.
5. Those applications were resisted by the landlords contending that the amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- sent by the tenant did not represent the actual arrears. It was claimed that the value of 8 bags of paddy at Rs.11.10/- per kilogram was Rs.5,772/- and similarly the value of 24 bags of paddy at Rs.11.10/- per kilogram was Rs.17,360/-. Admittedly, the tenant had sent only a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards compliance of respective orders. Therefore, there was a noncompliance with the order passed by the Revenue Court in T.C.T.P.Nos.12 of 2000 and 23 of 2007. The Revenue Court 3/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 however, allowed the applications and permitted the tenant to deposit such rent into Court. Consequentially execution petitions filed by the landlord in E.P.Nos.13 and 14 of 2012 came to be dismissed. Aggrieved, the landlords have come up with these four revision petitions.
6. Heard Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and contend that the Revenue Court had no powers to accept the deposit of tenants more so when the entire arrears was not tendered in a proceeding under Section 3 (4) of the said Act. Once the tenant fails to avail the opportunity granted by the Revenue Court, he cannot seek to get over the effect of non compliance by filing an application to deposit. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppana Chettiar and another Vs. K.Ramachandran and Nangappa Chettiar and others Vs. K.Subba Rao [(1981) 1 MLJ 136].
4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
8. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the tenant has not sent the rent payable as per the orders passed in T.C.T.P.Nos.12 of 2000 and 23 of 2007. The short question that is to be decided is as to the power of the Revenue Court to extend the time or to allow the tenant to deposit the rent into Court even in cases, where he had not complied with the orders passed by the Revenue Court under Section 3 (4) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides for grounds for eviction. One of the grounds for eviction is non payment of rents. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that the tenant, who does not pay the rent within a month of it falling due, is liable for eviction. Section 3(4)(b) provides that if an application is filed on the ground of non payment of rent, the Revenue Court can grant reasonable time to the tenant to deposit the arrears and the Section also provides that if the cultivating tenant deposits the same as directed, he would be relieved of the default and the proceedings will stand terminated. If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the rent as directed, the Revenue Court is obliged to pass an order of eviction.
9. Section 3(4) (b) of Act reads as follows:-
“(b) 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 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 application or dismissing it and in a case falling under clause (a) [tor clause (aa)] of sub-section (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in sub- section (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-section (3) (b). If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order of eviction.”
10. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the entire rent as per the directions of the Court within the time stipulated. Without doing so, he had sent part of the rent to the landlords by way of demand drafts, which has been rightly refused by the landlords. Soon thereafter, the tenant filed applications before the Revenue Court, seeking permission to deposit on the ground that landlords have refused. Permission to deposit can be granted only if the refusal is unjust or illegal. In the case on hand, refusal was just and legal, since the amount sent did not represent the entire arrears on the date of payment. The landlords, in my considered opinion, were justified in refusing to receive the demand drafts, which were for lessor amount than what was actually directed to be paid. It is not as if the tenant 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 was not aware of the price of paddy fixed by the Government as on that date. In fact in the affidavits filed in support of the applications in I.A.Nos.45 and 47 of 2012, the tenant would claim that the amount sent by him is representing the entire rent due as on that date.
11. Now turning to the power of the Revenue Court to extend the time or to direct to deposit, despite the tenant having failed to pay the arrears within the time stipulated by the Revenue Court, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench cited supra. While considering the effect of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, the Hon'ble Division Bench had held that subsequent payment will not cure the default. In the said case also there was an order of eviction passed under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act. The said order was challenged in a revision and in the revision an interim order was passed granting stay subject to condition that the tenant pays the arrears of rents. It was claimed that such payment pursuant to the interim order would constitute sufficient compliance, therefore, an order of eviction must go.
12. When the matter was came up before HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NATARAJAN as he then was, referred the matter to a Hon'ble Division Bench indicating conflicting opinion among the Hon'ble Single Judges on the issue. Upon such reference, the Hon'ble 7/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 Division Bench concluded that the Revenue Court has no power to direct such deposit and if the entire arrear is not paid within the time granted, then the consequence of eviction shall automatically follow. In doing so, the Hon'ble Division bench observed as follows:-
“23.In this case, from what we have pointed out already, it will be seen that the Authorised Officer passed the order under Section 3(4)(6) of the Act on the failure of the tenant to deposit the rent within the time stipulated by the earlier order. From this point of view, the order of the Authorised Officer is unexceptionable. As a matter of fact, the petitioners did not make any complaint against the order of the Authorised Officer on the merits. So long as the order of the Authorised Officer is unexceptionable and is not vitiated by any one of the factors enumerated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere with hat order.
24.The fact that during the pendency of the civil revision petitions the tenants applied for and obtained orders of interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction on condition of the deposit of the rent and did deposit the rent, will not in any way invalidate the order passed by the Authorised Officer. From this point of view, we are unable to agree with the observation of Gokulakrishnan, J.;
“As on date, it cannot be considered that there is any default on the part of the petitioner in the matter of payment of rent.” The question that has to be considered, in respect of the default is, not with reference to any date subsequent to the order of the Authorised Officer, but with reference to the 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 date fixed by the Officer prior to his passing the order for eviction. The section itself contemplates the Revenue Divisional Officer giving an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within such time as he considers just and reasonable and only if the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the same as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer can pass an order for eviction. Consequently, the default in such cases must have occurred prior to the Revenue Divisional Officer passing an order for eviction and in terms of an earlier order either independent or conditional. In view of this, the default contemplated by the statutory provision is one occurring and existing on the date of the passing of the order for eviction by the Revenue Divisional Officer himself and not at any stage subsequent to the said order. If the cultivating tenant does not deposit the rent as directed, default has occurred and there is no question of that default being cured or wiped out by the tenant depositing the rent pursuant to any interim order of this Court during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court pursuant to an interim order of the High Court will be one in compliance with the interim order of the High Court and can never be a deposit in compliance with the original order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. As a matter of fact, the High Court is not concerned in such proceedings with the original default committed by the cultivating tenant in payment of the rent to the landlord. It is because of original default, the Revenue Divisional Officer directs the tenant to deposit the rent into the Court before a particular date and the subject-matter of the civil revision proceedings in the High Court therefore will not be the original default, but only the failure of the tenant to comply with the direction of the Divisional Officer. 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 Once that failure is admitted and the consequential order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is unexceptionable, there will be no occasion for the High Court to give an opportunity to the cultivating tenant to comply with the original direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to deposit the amount, because the original direction no longer stands and that direction has worked itself out in the form of the final order for eviction, which, on merits, is not challenged. If the matter is understood in this manner, certainly any deposit made by the, tenant in terms of the interim order of stay passed by this Court staying the execution of the order for eviction passed by the Authorised Officer can never be tantamount to compliance with the conditional order passed by the Authorised Officer.”
13. In view of the above, I do not find any justification in the order passed by the Revenue Court in allowing applications filed by the tenant seeking deposit of rent into Court. It should also be pointed out that even in the applications filed for deposit, the rent did not represent the entire amount payable, they are only for Rs.5,000/- and for Rs.15,000/-. Once it is held that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to permit deposit under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, I do not think that the Revenue Court was right in allowing petition for depositing the amount into Court, where there is non compliance of its order passed in T.C.T.P.No.12 of 2000 and 23 of 2007 dated 12.03.2012.
10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
14. In view of the above, all these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and I.A.No.45 of 2012 in T.C.T.P.No.12 of 2000 and I.A.No.47 of 2012 in T.C.T.P.No.23 of 2007 will stand dismissed. E.P.No.13 of 2012 in T.C.T.P.No.12 of 2000 and E.P.No.14 of 2012 in T.C.T.P.No. 23 of 2007 will stand restored and the Revenue Court is directed to dispose of the said execution petitions in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.02.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
11/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J
ta
To
The Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector), Madurai.
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2213 to 2216 of 2013 24.02.2020 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in