Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Revenue Court, Lalgudi, allowing a petition filed under S. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection from Eviction) Act No. 41 of 1989. 2. It appears one Periasamy was the tenant under the revision petitioner landlord. The eviction petition was filed against him, and a decree was passed on the ground of arrears of rent, and in pursuance of that he was evicted on 23.4.1988. Subsequently he died on 3.5.1988. Thereafter his heirs who are minors have filed the application under S. 7 of the Act 41 of 1989. According to them they have already deposited the arrears in R.A. No. 1588 of 1990. 3. It is true that the arrears have been deposited upon an order passed permitting to deposit in R.A. No. 1588 of 1990. But it appears the landlord has filed an application for setting aside that order and that petition is still pending. 4. Now, the question that is raised in the Civil Revision Petition by the revision petitioner is that the petitioners who are minors cannot contend that they are the cultivating tenants and therefore the petition by them is incompetent. On a careful consideration I find that this contention of the learned counsel appears to have all force. A reading of S. 7 of the Act 41 of 1969 clearly shows that a petition for restoration can be filed by any tenant who had been evicted from the land. The tenant who had been evicted from the land is Periyasamy. Therefore the present petitioners i.e., his minor children are not cultivating tenants who had been evicted from the land. Hence the petition filed by them appears to be incompetent. 5. As regards this it is argued by the respondents here that after the eviction of Periyasamy it would not be possible for the petitioners to be cultivating tenants at all and therefore the Act being a beneficial one, the words “any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from the land” must be construed to include the heirs of Periasamy also. But I do not think that such a construction is possible at all. In my view it was not the intention of the Legislature that the words “any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from the land” would include the heirs of such tenant. But I do not think that such a construction is possible at all. In my view it was not the intention of the Legislature that the words “any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from the land” would include the heirs of such tenant. It is also argued that the petition filed by the heirs of Periasamy must be deemed to have been filed by Periasamy himself. I do not find anything at all on the basis of which it can be so deemed. 6. It is next argued that in as much as in R.A. No. 1588 of 1990 an order has been passed permitting the petitioners to deposit the arrears it must be taken that the petitioners had been recognised as cultivating tenants and that being the position it is not open to the landlords to say that they are not cultivating tenants in the present petition. But here is no question of recognising the petitioners as cultivating tenants in that R.A. No. 1588 of 1990. There the petitioners upon an application wanted to deposit the rent and they have been permitted to deposit. It is the case of the landlord that he did not receive notice in that petition and he has also filed an application to set aside that ex parte order order passed in the application. Therefore from the order passed in that petition it cannot be accepted that the petitioners are cultivating tenants. Therefore I find no merit in this submission. 7. The points raised now in the Civil Revision Petition by the respondents have not been raised in the Court below. In this view of the matter the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Special Sub Collector. Revenue Court, Lalgudi is set aside.