Madras High Court
Kunju Padayachi vs Rahmathunissa on 22 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)3MLJ633, 1999 A I H C 1342, (1998) 3 MAD LJ 633
ORDER K. Sampath, J.
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 Section 3(4)(A) of the Act for eviction pf 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 . 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. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the original order of deposit had not been complied with and instead of passing an order of eviction on 30.10.1995, the Revenue Court pass the order on 8.11.1995 and therefore, there is nothing to interfere in revision.
4. It is well settled that the Revenue Court has ample discretion to extend time and in the instant case on 30.10.1995, the Revenue Court on the application of the revision petitioner, granted time till 8.11.1995 to comply with the order of deposit, The time granted actually expired only on 8.11.1995. The order of the Revenue Court directing eviction on the same day is clearly erroneous.
5. In Ganapathy Padayachi v. Sri-La-Sri Subramania Desika, Gnanasambanada Pandarasannadhi etc. (1965) 2 M.L.J 14, it has been held as follows:
It is well settled that where a court fixes a date for the fulfillment of a certain condition, the person on whom that obligation is imposed will have the whole of that day for complying with that order.
The eviction cannot be ordered on the same day To the same effect is the decision in Ganapathy Thevar v. The Executive Officer .
6. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the entire arrears having been paid during the pendency of the revision petition as directed by this Court, the order of eviction cannot be allowed to stand. It has been held by a Bench of this Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran 93 L. W. 656, that if arrears are paid pursuant to directions in C.M.Ps, in revision filed against orders of eviction passed by the Revenue Courts, it cannot be said that the order of the Revenue Court had been complied with and the subsequent payment will nullify the order or eviction. While dealing with this point, the Bench observed as follows:
We are of the opinion that the question whether a particular proceeding pending before the High Court is continuation of the original proceedings or not, is not decisive of the matter in this case.
7. In Chinnammarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and Anr. v. Ayyavoo Perianna Gounder , 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 beneficent 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.
8. In the Supreme Court case, the tenant was in arrears of rent. The Revenue Divisional Officer while allowing time to deposit dues simultaneously passed conditional order for eviction on default. The Supreme Court held the order to be illegal and the Supreme Court also held that the arrears had been deposited more than two decades prior to the matter being heard by the Supreme Court and the order of eviction was therefore liable to be set aside and the tenant put back in possession.
9. In the present case, it is not necessary to decide whether the deposit pending revision would absolve the tenant inasmuch as the order of eviction passed on the very day, fixed for compliance has been held to be erroneous. The civil revision petition would stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 5125 of 1996 is dismissed.