Judgment :- The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, whieh is directed against the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruturai-poondi in P. No. 94 of 1981, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein praying for an order of eviction against the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of four items of properties in Survey Nos. 278/6, 278/5, 297/2-A and 278/3, totalling to 4 acres and 43 cents and these lands had been leased out to the respondent herein for purposes of cultivation of paddy, subject to payment of rent at 67½ kalams of paddy and an additional rent of 2 kalams per man for the second crop. According to the case of the petitioner, the lands are nanja lands irrigated by river water and that the lands had to be used only for agricultural purpose, but that contrary to this, the respondent had dug out a pond in a portion of the property leased and has also put up a samadhi for a cow and this, according to the petitioner, resulted in the conversion of nanja land into punja land. In addition, the petitioner also put forth the plea that the respondent had raised coconut trees in the land leased out for cultivation of paddy and had misused the land leased out to him and had also used the lands for non-agricultural purposes resulting in injury to the lands and also reduction in its value. A notice was sent by the petitioner demanding surrender of possession of the lands, but the respondent did not surrender the properties but had sent a reply containing false statements that these acts attributed to the respondent were done with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the stand taken by the respondent in his reply notice was false and unsustainable and that he had no right whatever to use the lauds for a different purpose and also cause injury to the leasehold property by his own acts and on these grounds prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent herein. 2. In his counter, the respondent stated that there was not enough facility for kalam and, therefore, with the permission of the petitioner, a part of the lands leased adjoining the manaicut of the respondent was converted into a kalam and used as such. 2. In his counter, the respondent stated that there was not enough facility for kalam and, therefore, with the permission of the petitioner, a part of the lands leased adjoining the manaicut of the respondent was converted into a kalam and used as such. The respondent also stated that the petitioner suggested that coconut cultivation may be done in the ridges and that only with his permission, coconut trees had been reared in the ridges. The respondent admitted the digging of a pond in the lands leased out to him and stated that with the earth made available thereby, the kalam had been formed and that the water in the pond wag being used for the purpose of irrigating the coconut trees. The respondent claimed that the provision for a kalam and the raising of coconut trees were agricultural operations and they cannot be considered to be acts injurious to the land leased. The burying of a dead cow in a portion of the lands was admitted. But, the respondent denied the putting up of any samadhi over that place. The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner that he had used the lands for non-agricultural and (non-horticultural purposes and that he has committed acts destructive of or injurious to the lands. 3. Before the Revenue Court, the petitioner examined himself as P. W., 1 and a neighbouring landowner, as P. W. 2, and marked Exhibits P-1 and P-2, copies of the notices issued by the petitioner and the reply for that from the respondent. The wife of the respondent was examined as R. W. 1, and Exhibits R-l and R-2 were relied on his behalf. With a view to ascertain the physical features and the condition on ground of the properties leased out to the respondent, the petitioner prayed for the appointment of a Commissioner and the Revenue Court deputed the Revenue Inspector of Thiruturaipoondi to inspect the lands in question and also send a detailed report. With a view to ascertain the physical features and the condition on ground of the properties leased out to the respondent, the petitioner prayed for the appointment of a Commissioner and the Revenue Court deputed the Revenue Inspector of Thiruturaipoondi to inspect the lands in question and also send a detailed report. On a purported consideration of the evidence, the Revenue Court found that the coconut trees were planted with the knowledge and permission of the petitioner, that the digging of a pond is only for storing water required for watering the coconut trees, that the digging of a manure pit cannot be stated to be for non-agricultural purposes, that the burying of a dead cow which is worshipped by the Hindu community cannot be stated to cause any injury to the land and that the putting up of a thatched shed over the place where the cow is burried was not for residental purposes or other purposes unconnected with agriculture and therefore, the petitioner has not made out a case under section 3 (2) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this view, the application for eviction filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition. 4. Before proceeding to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for an order of eviction, it is necessary to ascertain precisely the grounds upon which eviction is sought, as in the application for eviction filed by the petitioner, the provision of law quoted is section 19-B of the Act. Indeed, there is no such section under the concerned enactment. But, merely because the petitioner has not given the correct provision of law, the petitioner cannot be denied reliefs under the appropriate provisions, if the petitioner otherwise establishes a case for such relief. Under section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, the protection afforded to a cultivating tenant from eviction under section 3 (1) is not available if the tenant has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land. Under section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, the protection afforded to a cultivating tenant from eviction under section 3 (1) is not available if the tenant has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of or injurious to the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land. Likewise under section 3 (2) (c) of the Act, a tenant who had used the land for any purpose not being an agricultural or horticultural purpose will also forfeit such protection. A reading of paragraph 7 of the application for eviction discloses that the complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent had dug out a pond and had also put up a samadhi and had raised coconut trees and these acts would constitute user of the land for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural and that these acts have also caused injury to the lands leased out to him. In other words, though the petitioner has mentioned section 19-B of the Act, yet, it is seen from the contents of the application, that the application really is one which falls under section 3 (2) (6) and (c) of the Act. Therefore, the question whether on the materials the petitioner is entitled to an order for eviction or not has to be approached and decided keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law. 5. Earlier, it has been noticed that the Revenue Inspector, Tiruturaipoondi, was appointed as the Commissioner to make on the spot inspection of the lands in question and submit report. In the course of his report, the Commissioner has stated that portions of survey No. 270/2-A, which is a nanja land, are being used by the respondent for raising coconut trees and also plantain cultivation. The Commissioner has also noticed that in a portion of Survey No. 279/2-A, a dead cow had been buried and that a samadhi had been built to mark the place of its burial and further a thatched roof has been put up over that. With reference to another portion in the same survey number, the Commissioner had found that the respondent had dug a manure pit. It has also been observed by the Commissioner that the respondent had converted the nanja land into punja lands. As regards survey No. 278/3 also, the Commissioner had noticed the planting of coconut trees. With reference to another portion in the same survey number, the Commissioner had found that the respondent had dug a manure pit. It has also been observed by the Commissioner that the respondent had converted the nanja land into punja lands. As regards survey No. 278/3 also, the Commissioner had noticed the planting of coconut trees. No objection whatever had been filed by the respondent to the features noticed by the Commissioner and mentioned in this report. 6. The petitioner, examined, as P. W. 1, in the course of his chief-examination, has stated that the lands leased out to the respondent are double crop lands irrigated by river and that therein the respondent had buried a cow and put up a roof over that and that he had also issued a notice to the respondent. The notice referred to is Exhibit P-1, where the petitioner has charged the respondent with having dug up a pond and put up a samadhi for a cow. In the reply, Exhibit P-2, the respondent has admitted that a threshing floor had been put up by him with the earth made available by the digging up of the pond and that the building of a samadhi was encouraged by the petitioner. The evidence of P. W. 2, who is a neighbouring landowner is also to the effect that the respondent had buried a cow in the field and had put up a samadhi and also a thatched roof. He has also spoken to the digging up of a pond. P. W. 2 has also witnessed the burying of the dead cow and has further stated that the samadhi has been raised to a height of 2 feet in the middle of the field. R. W. 1, in the course of her evidence, would admit the burial of the cow, but would state that it was in the ridge. She would also further state that no samadhi has been put up. In the course of her cross-examination, she would admit that on Tuesdays and Fridays a lamp is lit at the place where the cow is buried. She would admit the digging of a pond and also a manure pit. With reference to the digging up of the pond, R. W. 2 categorically admitted that no permission was taken from the petitioner. She would admit the digging of a pond and also a manure pit. With reference to the digging up of the pond, R. W. 2 categorically admitted that no permission was taken from the petitioner. She would also further admit that no permission was obtained from the petitioner for the putting up of a samadhi for the cow, as according to her, no samadhi was put up at all. 7. It is thus seen from the counter of the respondent and also the evidence of R. W. No. 1 that a pond had been dug in the lands leased out to the respondent. It is also clear from the evidence of R. W. 1, that no permission was obtained from the petitioner. In this situation, the question is, whether coconut cultivation and the digging up of the pond in a double crop land, which had been let out for cultivation of paddy, would be acts which are destructive of or injurious to the lands and would also amount to user of the land for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural. There is no dispute between the parties that the lands has been originally leased out only for purposes of paddy cultivation and that the respondent has been measuring paddy rent. The raising of coconut trees as seen from the report of the Commissioner is not only on the ridges as claimed by the respondent, but extends, to portions of the survey numbers leased out to the respondent. The raising of coconut trees in double crop nanja lands would undoubtedly be an act which would be injurious to the lands though it may be that if would still be a horticultural purpose. The raising of coconut trees in double crop nanja lands involves the digging of deep pits and when the coconut trees grow up they are deeply imbedded in the soil and the soil is thus rendered less fertile and unfi for paddy cultivation. In other words, it will be in the nature of an act which is injurious to the land. In addition, in this case, even in the counter, the respondent had admitted the digging up a pond, though he would claim that it is for the purpose of irrigating the coconut saplings. In other words, it will be in the nature of an act which is injurious to the land. In addition, in this case, even in the counter, the respondent had admitted the digging up a pond, though he would claim that it is for the purpose of irrigating the coconut saplings. When the raising of coconut trees by itself is an act which is injurious to the lands the further digging up of a pond for the purpose of irrigating the coconut saplings would also be an act which is really destructive of and injurious to the land. In Sattayappa Thevars. V. Sambanda Thevar1, the question arose whether if a single crop is raised in a double crop land, the tenant can be stated to have committed any act which is injurious to the land. Kailasam, J. (as he then was), held that it could be inferred that the value of the land would be adversely affected if only a single crop is cultivated in a double crop land and there will be injury to the land value. If the mere cultivation of a single crop in a double crop land by itself has been held to bean act injurious to the land, it would be all the more so in a case like the present where the respondent admittedly had dug up a portion of the cultivable lands leased out to him for purposes of a pond. 8. In Rosathal v. Palani Gounder2, Varadarrajan, J. (as he then was), had to consider whether the digging up of a pit in the agricultural land demised would diminish the utility of the land and is also destructive of or injurious to the land. The learned Judge held that the tenant had no right to dig a pit and remove the earth which has been found to be fertile and that such an act would be destructive of or injurious to the land and, therefore, he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of section 3 (2) (b) of the Act. In the present case, also admittedly the lands demised are double crop lands irrigated by river and intended for cultivation of paddy. It is admitted by the respondent in paragraph 2 of the counter that the earth dug out from the land for the purpose of formation of a pond had been utilised in making provision for a kalam. In the present case, also admittedly the lands demised are double crop lands irrigated by river and intended for cultivation of paddy. It is admitted by the respondent in paragraph 2 of the counter that the earth dug out from the land for the purpose of formation of a pond had been utilised in making provision for a kalam. That would mean that fertile cultivable agricultural land has been dug up for the purpose of removing the earth therefrom to form a kalam. Such an act is really destructive of or injurious to the land in that the area occupied by the pond cannot be put to either agricultural or horticultural use for purposes. Therefore, the admitted digging up of the pond by the respondent and using the earth therefrom for the purposes of providing a kalam would undoubtedly attract section 3 (2) (b) as well as section 3 (2) (c) of the Act in the instant case. 9. The burial of the cow has been admitted by the respondent in his counter, though there was an attempt in the course of the evidence of R. W. 1 to say that such burial was in the ridge. The report of the Commissioner belies it. Likewise, though R. W. 1 made an attempt to deny the existence of the samadhi, the report of the Commissioner clearly establishes the existence of the samadhi and P. W. 2’s evidence is also to the effect that it is in the middle of the field. Even in the notice Exhibit P-1, building of a samadhi has been referred to by the petitioner and has been admitted by the respondent in his reply notice Exhibit P-2, though during the course of the evidence there was an attempt by R. W. 1 to deny the building up of a samadhi. The report of the Commissioner referred to earlier clearly makes out the existence of the samadhi over the place where the cow is buried and also the putting up of a thatched roof over that. A part of the double crop agricultural land given to the respondent for paddy cultivation has been used by the respondent for the purpose of burying carcass. To put it differently the respondent has converted the cultivable agricultural land into a burial ground for the animals. A part of the double crop agricultural land given to the respondent for paddy cultivation has been used by the respondent for the purpose of burying carcass. To put it differently the respondent has converted the cultivable agricultural land into a burial ground for the animals. Even according to the evidence of R. W. 1 no permission was taken for the digging up of the pond as it was a small one and that no permission for putting up of as samadhi was secured, as no samadhis such was put up. This evidence of R. W. 1 (would clearly indicate that the petitioner had not permitted the digging of the pond or even the putting up the samadhi and in those circumstances, the respondent cannot plead that section 3 (2) (b) and (c) of the Act would not apply. In such a case, undoubtedly the land cannot be stated to be used for a purpose which is either agricultural or horticultural and clearly, therefore, section 3 (2) (c) of the Act would stand attracted to this kind of user made by the respondent. 10. In Muthukrishna Chettiar v. Kanni Konar1, the question arose whether the use of a portion of the land as a fuel depot would amount to putting the land for agricultural or horticultual purposes. Rajagopalan, J., held that the use of the land as a fuel depot is not putting the land either for agricultural or horticultural purposes and that the liability for eviction from the entire holding will arise under section 3 (2) (c) of the Act. It was also further pointed out that the extent of the land is immaterial in deciding whether an act had been committed which would fall within the scope of section 3 (2) (c) of the Act. In the light of the principles laid down in the decision referred to above, the burying of the cow and the putting up of a samadhi as well as a thatched roof over that would undoubtedly be user of the land for a purpose not being an agricultural or horticultural one within the meaning of section 3 (2) (c) of the Act. 11. 11. An attempt was also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had dug up a manure pit also in the lands intended for cultivation and that would also fall under section 3 (2) (b) and (c) of the Act. A perusal of the application for eviction, however, shows that it has not been made a ground for seeking an order of eviction against the respondent and it is, therefore, unnecessary to consider that. 12. Thus, on a consideration of the entire matter it is seen that the respondent had, in double crop lands leased out to him for the purpose of paddy cultivation, dug up pond, buried a cow, erected a samadhi over that and also put up a thatched roof and had also cultivated coconut trees thereon. These acts would result in the forfeiture of the protection from eviction conferred on the tenant under section 3 (1) of the Act. The Revenue Court was therefore, in error in declining to order eviction of the respondent. Consequently, the order of the Revenue Court is set aside and the respondent will stand vacated from his holdings. The civil revision petition is, therefore, allowed with costs.