Madras High Court
Marudaveeran Moopan vs U.K. Krishnan on 21 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)1MLJ518
Author: Pratap Singh
Bench: Pratap Singh
ORDER Pratap Singh, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 325 of 1987 in Petition No. 1379 of 1986 on the file of Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Lalgudi.
2. Short facts are : The respondent had filed petition for eviction against the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. After enquiry, the Revenue Court had found that there was arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 5,135 and had passed an order on 21.4.1987, directing deposit of the said amount on or before 31.5.1987, in default of which, order of eviction will follow. The revision petitioner had not deposited the arrears within the peri of specified viz. 31.5.1987. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. No. 325 of 1987 for eviction. In that E.P. he paid Rs. 1,570 and had prayed for time for payment of the balance. The petition was posted finally on 27.10.1987, on which date, he did not appear in court. Holding that still a sum of Rs. 3,565 was not paid by the respondent the court below had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.
3. Mr. Umapathy, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the arrears pointed out in the order of the court below, viz. Rs. 3,565 was not correct and that the receipt, the copy of which is filed in page 3 of the typed set, would show that balance yet to be paid was only Rs. 2,415 and that by virtue of the order passed in C.M.P. No. 20420 of 1987, he deposited in the court below, the admitted arrears of Rs. 2,115 and that no arrears was now due. He would further submit that by virtue of Section 7, Sub-section (5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 (Act 38 of 1990), if before the date of the publication of this Act, any decree or order had been passed in any proceeding for eviction of a cultivating tenant for non-payment of such current rent or any arrears of rent, the court shall, if the cultivating tenant pays or deposits under this Act, the current rent, and one-third of the arrears of rent, the order of eviction cannot be executed and so in as much as arrears of rent were paid, the order of eviction passed by the court below has to be set aside. Per contra, Mr. Parthasarathy, the learned Counsel appearing for the. respondent, would submit that only in a case where the current rent and one-third of the entire arrears of rent were deposited or paid, as per the provisions of the Act, for which the time limit has been fixed, one can claim benefits under Section 7(5) referred to supra and in the instant case those condition were not complied with and as such the revision petitioner cannot urge this ground.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. For considering the above submission, Section 7, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) are relevant and need extraction. They are as follows:
7.(1) All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord for the said years and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act, shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefor, if such cultivating tenant pays to the landlord or deposits in the court or before the competent authority, to the amount of the landlord in the manner specified in Sub-sections (2) and (3),-
(a) the current rent; and
(b) one third of the total amount of arrears of rent for the said years without interest (hereinafter referred to as the one-third of the arrears of rent). (2) Any cultivating tenant may pay to the landlord or deposit in the court or before the competent authority to the account of the landlord,-
(b) the one-third of the arrears of rent in five equal annual instalments as specified below:
(i) the first instalment, on or before the 31st day of March, 1991;
(ii) the second instalment, on or before the 31st day of March, 1992;
(iii) the third instalment, on or before the 31st day of March, 1993;
(iv) the fourth instalment, on or before the 31st day of March, 1994; and
(v) the fifth instalment, on or before the 31st day of March, 1995.
(5) If before the date of the publication of this Act, any decree or order has been passed in any suit or proceeding-
(i) for the recovery of the current rent or any arrears of rent referred to in Sub-section (4); or (ii) for the eviction of a cultivating tenant for non-payment of such current rent or any such arrears of rent, the court or the competent authority shall, if the cultivating tenant pays or deposits under this Act, the current rent and the one-third of the arrears of rent and on the application of any person affected by such decree or order whether or not he was a party thereto, vacate the decree or order in so far as such decree or order relates to such recovery or eviction.
5. The plain language of Section 7(5)(ii) would show that the pre-requisite for claiming benefits of the said sub-section are;
(i) the cultivating tenant shall pay or deposit under this Act;
(ii) the said deposit or payment shall be the current rent and one-third of the arrears of rent;
(iii) application should be filed by the person affected by the order.
6. So far as deposit or payment "under this Act" are concerned, it shall be in accordance with Section 7, Sub-section (2), which I have extracted above. In the instant case, there is no material to show that there was any such payment or deposit as contemplated under Section 7, Sub-section (2).
7. Further more, what has been contemplated was payment or deposit of the current rent and one-third of the arrears of rent. There is neither any material to show that the current rent and one-third of the arrears of rent were paid or deposited. Mr. Umapathy, would submit that this is a case where eviction order was passed for arrears of rent and that arrears of rent were all paid, as staled by him supra and so the condition stipulated in Section 7(2) was satisfied. I am unable to accept this submission for the reason that language of Section 7(5)(ii) would show that the payment of deposit under this Act shall be not only the arrears of rent, but also the current rent. So far as the main part of Section 7(5)(ii) is concerned, it would show that it can be pressed into service in a case where eviction of a cultivating tenant for non-payment of such current or such arrears of rent. Both cases are covered inasmuch as the word 'or' was used. But regarding the subsequent part of Section 7(5)(ii), the word "or" is not there. But the word used is "and". Payment on deposit of current rent and one-third of the arrears of rent was a condition precedent for claiming the benefits. For the reasoning, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Umapathy that the arrears of rent were paid and that would be sufficient to claim the benefits of Section 7(5)(ii).
8. Neither any application was filed by the revision petitioner claiming the benefits of this provision. For the reasons given above, I am clear that in this revision, the revision petitioner cannot claim the benefits under Section 7(5)(ii) of the Act, I do not find cither any other ground to sustain this revision.
9. In view of the above, the civil revision petition fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. The revision petitioner is at liberty to take any steps in this regard, if it is open to him under law.