Madras High Court
Muniappa Reddiar vs Ganesa Reddiar And Anr. on 6 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)1MLJ494
ORDER Abdul Hadi, J.
1. The landlord under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has filed this revision petition against the order dated 4.10.1991 in his petition C.D.P. No. 296 of 1985 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore. By the said order dated 4.10.1991, the Special Deputy Collector dismissed the said C.D.P. filed under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act for ejectment of the respondents-tenants from the petition land on the ground of arrears of rent for ten years, that is from 1977 to 1987. Originally by order dated 21.12.1989, the said revenue court, in the said petition computed the arrears due at Rs. 6,000 and gave time to the tenants to pay the said sum to the landlord in four instalments as follows:
(1) Rs. 1,500 on 20.1.1990 (2) Rs. 1,500 on 20.2.1990 (3) Rs. 1,500 on 20.3.1990 (4) Rs. 1,500 on 20.4.1990 The said order also stipulated that if the payment is not made accordingly, necessary steps would be taken for eviction of the tenants.
2. The respondents-tenants did not pay the abovesaid four instalments as stipulated but paid the abovesaid sum of Rs. 6,000 belatedly as follows:
(1) Rs. 1,500 on 24-1-1990 (2) Rs. 3,000 on 30-8-1990 (3) Rs. 1,500 on 4-10-1991 No doubt the landlord has received the said payments and has also given in writing that there are no arrears. Therefore, the abovesaid Revenue Court has passed the abovesaid order dated 4.10.1991, virtually dismissing the said C.D.P. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed this revision.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since admittedly the abovesaid four instalments had not been paid in time as stipulated, the revenue court should have only allowed the C.D.P. and ordered ejectment of the tenants from the suit land. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents-tenants points out that the original order dated 21.12.1989 itself is not in accordance with law, since the relevant provision, viz., Section 3(4)(b) of the Act provides for the tenants depositing the arrears of rent into Court and not payment of the arrears to the landlord. According to the said counsel, the revenue court can only direct the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent in court and it has no jurisdiction under the said provision to direct the tenants to pay the rent to the landlord. In this connection, he relies on V. Lakshmanan v. Sambandam Pillai and Muthukumar Padayachi v. Sambandam Pillai .
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Navamaniammal v. Ammani Ammal to contend that when the tenants have not challenged the original order dated 21.12.1989, directing payment and not directing deposit, it is not open to them to question later the validity of the said order dated 2i. 12.1989. The learned Counsel for the respondents in this connection, contends that (1958) 2 M.L.J. 145 will not apply to the present case since the landlord has accepted the payments made without any demur.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the payments have not been made in time as stipulated in the order dated 21.12.1989 and the payments have been made very much belatedly. No doubt in V. Lakshmanan v. Sambandam Pillai , it has been held that Scc.3(4)(b) makes it obligatory on the Revenue Divisional Officer to order eviction in the event only of failure to deposit. It has further held on its facts that, not having made an order for deposit, the Revenue Divisional Officer was wrong in holding that he had no option except to pass an order for eviction. But, it must be noted that there, on 24.4.1957, direction to pay arrears on or before 21.3.1957 was made and when on 22.5.1957 the petition was posted it was found that the tenant did not pay on or before 21.5.1957, but sought to make the payment on 22.5.1957. The Revenue Divisional Officer turned down the said request and passed an order of eviction on 22.5.1957. Then the tenant challenged the original order dated 24.4.1957 in revision before this Court and in that context, this Court held as stated above.
6. But, in Navamaniammal v. Ammani Ammal , it has been held that where an order lot payment has been made under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act and the tenant did not raise any objection to it, it is not open to him to question later the validity of that order, in the revision proceeding arising out of the eviction order passed against him due to his failure to tender the rent as directed. In the said case, on 15.4.1957, the Revenue Divisional Officer made the order directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the said date on 1.5.1957, the tenant sent money order to the landlord for the amount of arrears of rent. But the said money order was returned, filed a petition for evicting the tenant and that was allowed and the tenant sought to canvass the correctness of the said order evicting the said tenant. In that context, after holding that there was no evidence to show that the direction to pay the arrears had been properly complied with, this Court has held that though under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer could only direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent into court and had no jurisdiction to direct to pay the rent to the landlord; the tenant having not raised any objection to the order directing him to pay the rental arrears, cannot question later the validity of the eviction order that was subsequently passed against him due to his failure to pay the rent as directed, the relevant observation of this Court in the said decision is as follows:
...the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is no doubt at variance with this requirement of the statute. But then the petitioner should have come up to this Court to revise that order. That she did not do so shows that in spite of its irregularity she did not really feel aggrieved by it. I cannot now, after the various events that have happened since then, be asked to reopen an order about which, at the time it was made, the petitioner had no grievance.
7. In the present case also the respondents-tenants have not challenged the above referred to order dated 21.2.1989, which directed the abovesaid payment to be made in four instalments. So, here also, it is not open to them to question the validity of the order dated 21.12.1989 now in this civil revision petition filed by the landlord.
8. Thus, the ruling laid down in Navamaniammal v. Ammani Ammal , squarely applies to the present case. V. Lakshmanan v. Sambandam Pillai , docs not deal with a case as the present one or the case that arose in (1958) 2 M.L.J. 145. In (1958) 1 M.L.J. 26, the tenant challenged the original order directing payment in revision. That is not the case either in the present case or in the case is (1958) 2 M.L.J. 145.
9. Further the decision in V. Lakshmanan v. Sambandam Pillai only holds, as it was held in (1958)1 M.LJ. 26, that an order for payment is wrong under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act. That division also docs not actually deal with the other question which has been decided in Navamaniammal v. Ammani Ammal , holding that when the tenant does not challenge the original order for payment it is not open to him to question later, the validity of the said order.
10. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the respondent-tenants submits that unlike the case in Navamaniammal v. Ammani Ammal , in the present case, the landlord has accepted the abovesaid belated payments made by the tenants. But, even assuming that the landlord has accepted those belated payments without any protest, that conduct of the landlord has no bearing to decide the issue in hand. The mere receipt by the landlord of the rental arrears admittedly due to him, cannot be put against him to decide the abovesaid issue. Further, what is emphasized in (1958) 2 M.L.J. 145 is that if the tenant keeps quiet and does not challenge the original order for payment he cannot later on challenge the validity of the said order. In the present case, the respondents-tenants having not challenged the original order dated 21.12.1989, cannot now contend that the original order itself is bad and that hence eviction cannot be ordered.
11. Therefore, the impugned order dated 4.10.1991 is absolutely unjustified and without jurisdiction since the tenants have not complied with the original order dated 21.12.1989 as they had paid the rental arrears very much belatedly beyond the time stipulated in the original order dated 21.12.19S9,andas they had not even chosen to file a petition for extension of the time originally fixed for payment.
12. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the abovesaid C.R.P. No. 296 of 1985 is allowed and eviction is ordered as prayed for. The civil revision petition is allowed with costs.