Order.- The landlady is the petitioner in these revision petitions. The short point that arises for determination is whether the deposit made by the cultivating tenants under section 3 (3) (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act of 1955 is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act, as the tenants deposited only the value of the paddy (of the petitioner’s share) of the rent and not the value of the landlady’s share of the stalk or straw. In all these cases the landlady filed applications for fixation of fair rent under the Payment of Fair Rent Act of 1956 and the authority concerned had fixed the fair rent (paddy) but in that order there was no reference to the one-fifth share of the stalk or straw of all the crops, to which the landlady would be entitled under Explanation to section 4 of the Payment of Fair Rent Act of 1956. The Rent Court accepted the deposits made by the tenants and declined to express any opinion about the value of the landlady’s share of straw or stalk on the ground that it was not within his jurisdiction to decide that question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (landlady) contended that the Rent Court ought to have dismissed the petitions filed by the tenants under section 3 (3) (a) when once it was found that the tenants had not deposited the value of the landlady’s share of paddy along with the landlady’s share of stalk or straw. He urged that the fact that under the Fair Rent Act the fair rent was fixed with reference to the paddy and no mention was made about straw does not absolve the liability of the tenants to deposit its value if the tenants chose to invoke the provisions of section 3 (3) (a) of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act. In substance his argument is that so long as the deposit made by the tenants does not comprise the entirety of the rent due by the tenants in cash, the petition was liable to be dismissed. I do not agree that,-that should be the result in every case where there is a deficiency in the amount deposited irrespective of all other circumstances. I do not agree that,-that should be the result in every case where there is a deficiency in the amount deposited irrespective of all other circumstances. The facts of the case disclose that the tenants were labouring under a bona fide doubt as to what they should do in regard to the value of the landlady’s share of straw since the Fair Rent Court had not determined its value. So long as its value had not been determined by the Fair Rent Court, it would be open to the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 3 (3) (b) to determine the value of the straw for the purposes of a proceeding under the Tenants’ Protection Act and give some time to the tenants to pay the same. In my opinion, whenever the fair rent had not been fixed under the Fair Rent Act, whether in respect of paddy or straw, or of both, if the tenant files an application under section 3 (3) (a) of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act the Rent Court for the purpose of that proceeding will have undoubted jurisdiction to decide the quantum of rent under section 3 (3) (b) and if there is any deficiency on account of a bona fide genuine doubt, or for any other sufficient reason the Rent Court shall allow the cultivating tenant some time to make up the deficiency. The Rent Court should not have declined to decide the value of the landlady’s share of straw. The result therefore is that these petitions are remitted back to the Rent Court for fixing the value of the landlady’s share of straw and direct the tenants to pay the same within a reasonable time. R.M. ------------- Petitions remitted.