ORDER.-The petitioner in this revision is the “landlord” within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act (XXI of 1972),. (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). The respondent herein claims himself to be a ‘cultivating tenant’ within the meaning of the Act. Reliefs were asked for by the respondent herein under section 3 of the Act by filing a petition P.No. 479 of 1973 on the file of the Revenue Court.Mayuram, against the “landlord”. The “cultivating tenant” deposited a sum of Rs. 991.50 on 9th February, 1973 which according to him represented the value of rent for the property in question for fash’ 1381 under the Act. The “landlord” contested the claims of the “cultivating tenant” stating inter alia that the deposit was inadequate because grams were raised and the value of the grams has not been included and even otherwise the value of the paddy and straw has been worked out at a lesser rate. The Revenue Court found that the claim for value of the grams put forth by the “landlord” is not tenable because it had not been proved that the “cultivating tenant” raised grams. With regard to the value of the paddy and straw, the Revenue Court held it must be Rs. 1,051.50 and giving credit to the sum of Rs. 991.50 already deposited the “cultivating tenant” was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 50 and he was given time till 24th March, 1974 to deposit the sum of Rs. 50 and report the matter on 25th March, 1974. This order of the Revenue Court was passed on 23rd March, 1974. The present revision has been preferred by the “landlord” challenging the order of the Revenue Court. 2. Thiru R. Balachander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in view of the pronouncements of this Court construing the provisions of the Act, the Revenue Court must be held to have no jurisdiction to grant time to the “cultivating tenant” to make up the shortfall in the proper amount to be deposited and in any event the “cultivating tenant” was not bona fide in not making the proper deposit and hence the application for reliefs under the provisions of the Act must be rejected. 3. 3. It is true that this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of the Act and in particular section 3 of the Act in some of the decisions but in my opinion the import of and the principle deducible from the said decisions do not support the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It would be pertinent to extract section 3 (i) of the Act to understand and appreciate the implications thereof: “All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord and outstanding on the 30th June, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as arrears of rent) shall be deemed to be discharged whether, or not a decree or order has been obtained therefor, if such cultivating tenant:- (i) has before the date of the publication of this Act paid to the landlord or deposited in the Court or before the competent authority, to the account of the landlord; or (ii) pays or deposits in the manner specified in clause (b) within six months from the date of the publication of this Act ; or (iii) is deemed to have paid or deposited under this Act; the whole of the rent due for the fasli year commencing on the 1st July, 1971 and ending with the 30th June, 1972 (herein after referred to as the current rent) (b) A cultivating tenant may- (i) deposit in the Court or before the competent authority, to the account of the landlord, the current rent or if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit. (c) The Court in which, or the competent authority before which, the deposit is made shall cause notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and determine, after a summary enquiry, whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of the current rent due from the cultivating tenant. If the Court or competent authority finds that any further sum is due, it shall direct the cultivating tenant to deposit the further sum within the period specified in clause (a) (ii). If the Court or competent authority finds that any further sum is due, it shall direct the cultivating tenant to deposit the further sum within the period specified in clause (a) (ii). If the Court or competent authority adjudges that no further sum is due or if the cultivating tenant deposits within the time referred to above, such further sum as is ordered by the Court ‘or competent authority, the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to have paid the current rent for the purposes of this Act.” 5. In Kasthuri Ammal v. Perumal Naicker1, Ramanujam, J., had to deal with a case under the Act in which the application under section 3 was filed on 12th February, 1973 because 11th February, 1973 happened to be a holiday. There was a short-fall with reference to the proper deposit under the Act and the Court below declined to grant further time. The order of the Court below was passed on 5th May, 1973 and on the question as to whether further time could be granted, the learned Judge held that the Court cannot extend the time beyond the six months period. 6. N.S.Ramaswamy, J., in V. Sankara Ayyar v. Sandana Muthiriar2, agreed with the above view of Ramanujam, J., and discountenanced the plea that the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for making the proper deposit. In the case dealt with by N.S.Ramaswami, J., the deposit which was found to be insufficient was made on 6th February, 1973 and the order of the Court below directing the cultivating tenant to deposit further amounts to make up the deficiency was passed on 2nd May, 1973.From the discussion of the facts in the judgment of the learned Judge it appears that in the said case the Court below purported to extend the time. 7. In Subramania Thevar v. Angammal3, Kailasam, J. as he then was, observed that taking the entire section as a whole the proper construction would be to hold that the tenant would be entitled only to a period of six months from the date of the publication of the Act ; but in determining that period, the time taken by the Court under section 3 (1) (c) of the Act will have to be excluded. 8. 8. N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Mookan alias Pichiah Natter v. Durai Pandian and others4 held that the cultivating would get the benefit of wiping out the arrears if the whole of the rent due for fasli 1381 is paid and the Act cannot be availed of by the cultivating tenant if only a part of the rent is paid. The learned Judge repelled the argument that even though the whole of the rent due for fasli 1381 might not have been either paid or deposited, the arrears should be held to have been wiped out in proportion to the payment or deposit made. 9. There is another judgment of N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Chinnathambi Padayachi v. Thanichachalam Pillai and another1. The learned Judge referred to the dictum of Kailasam, J., as he then was in Subramania Thevar v. Angammal2, and upheld the contention on behalf of the landlord that the enquiry contemplated under section 3 (1) (c) can be only in respect of any bona fide dispute regarding the amount payable. The learned Judge held that only if there is any bona fide controversy as to the amount due, the exclusion of the time taken by the Court will arise for consideration. 10. In M. Ramaswami and another v. In Sennimalai Gounder3, Ramaprasada Rao, J., was concerned with a case where the original deposit was made on 13th October, 1972 and the authorised Officer in that case passed an order on 5th March, 1973 to make further deposit of Rs. 50 and the deposit was made on 9th March, 1973. The learned Judge followed the decision of Kailasam, J. as he then was, in Subramania Thevar v. Angammal2, and held that the time taken by the Court under section 3 (1) (c) will to be have excluded. 11. Suryamurthy, J., had occasion to consider this question in Lakshmiammal v. Kalanjiyam 4 , where the deposit was made on 9th February, 1973 and the order of the Authorised Officer granted a further period of 2 months from the date of his order to deposit the balance. The learned Judge following the ratio of the decisions of of N.S. Ramaswami, J., in V.Sankara Ayyar v. Sandana Muthiriar 5 held that the provisions of the Act would not enable the Court to extend the time beyond the period prescribed by it. 12. The learned Judge following the ratio of the decisions of of N.S. Ramaswami, J., in V.Sankara Ayyar v. Sandana Muthiriar 5 held that the provisions of the Act would not enable the Court to extend the time beyond the period prescribed by it. 12. The decisions referred to above have recognised the principles that the period of six months referred to in section 3 (»‘) (a) (ii) of the Act cannot be extended by the Court; that the time taken by the Court in deciding the case under section 3 (i) (c) of the Act will have to be excluded and that if the cultivating tenant acts mala fide and deliberately deposits inadequate and insufficient amounts, and drags on the proceedings to a considerable length of time, then the time taken by the Court under section 3 (i) (c) of the Act cannot be availed of by the cultivating tenant so as to be excluded in computing the period of six months concerned. Coming to the facts of the present case the deposit was made on the 9th February, 1973 which was later found to be not adequate in the sense a further deposit of Rs. 60 was directed to be made by the Court below. The order of the Court below is dated 23rd March, 1974. The Court below granted time till 24th March, 1974 to make the further deposit of Rs. 60, that is, a day’s extension was granted. When the original deposit was made on 9th February, 1973, the “cultivating tenant” had two days time to make requisite deposit within the period of six months. If the time taken by the Court viz., the period between 9th February, 1973 and 23rd March, 1974 is excluded then one day’s time granted by the Court below to make up the deficiency cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Court below has not extended the time beyond six. months period. 13. In a recent pronouncement, V. Ramaswami, J., in Sammanna Gounder v. Mysore Mission by its power agent Rev. Father Uthrium6 has accepted the principle that if a few days are left after the application for declaration was filed then that tenant would be satisfying the provision if he deposits the money within the left-out period after the disposal of his application. Father Uthrium6 has accepted the principle that if a few days are left after the application for declaration was filed then that tenant would be satisfying the provision if he deposits the money within the left-out period after the disposal of his application. I am in respectful agreement with the said principle laid down by the learned Judge and I am inclined to follow the same to the facts of the present case. 14. Even otherwise, the Court below found that bona fide controversy has arisen for adjudication as to the proper deposit. The “landlord” put forth a plea that grams were raised and their lvalue has not been deposited. The Court below analysed the materials on ‘record and found that this case of the “landlord” is without substance and there has been a mistake committed by the “cultivating tenant” only with regard to the paddy and the straw. Hence, there was jurisdiction for excluding the time taken by the Court in the enquiry under section 3 (1) (c) of the Act. In this view I do not find that the order of the Court below suffers any infirmity in law or suffers on the question of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in revision. Hence this revision is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.