K. R. Veluchamy Naidu v. K. Viswanathan — 1994 DIGILAW 492 (MAD)

Judgment : The parties in all these civil revision petitions are the same. They are landlord and tenant in respect of the land covered by these proceedings. C.R.P.No.1441 of 1992 is directed against the order passed in R.A.No.1543 of 1990 on the file of the Revenue Court, Salem at Udumalpet in which the Revenue Court had passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 (Act 38 of 1990) which I shall hereinafter refer to as the ‘Rent Relief Act.‘ 2. C.R.P.Nos.3885 and 4255 of 1987 are filed by the tenant and landlord respectively against the order passed in O.P.No.35 of 1985, in which the Revenue Court had ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1976-77 to 1983-84, disallowing the landlord’s case that there was arrears of rent from 1970-71 onwards. C.R.P.No.4068 of. 1986 is directed against the order passed in O.P.No.22 of 1979 by the Revenue Court in which the Revenue Court has passed an order of eviction on the ground that there was arrears of rent for 1976-77. 3. Short facts are: K.R.Velusamy Naidu, whom I shall hereinafter refer to as the ‘tenant’ is the tenant of the land belonging to K.Viswanathan whom I shall hereinafter refer to as the ‘landlord’. Alleging that there was arrears of rent for the period 1976-77, the landlord sought eviction in O.P.No.22 of 1979. There was dispute between the parties with regard to the quantum of rent. The landlord claimed that rent was 37 salagais of paddy, payable in two instalments for two bogums, whereas the tenant would contend that the rent was 30 salagais of paddy payable in two instalments. After elaborate enquiry, the Revenue Court has accepted the case of the landlord and held that the rate of rent was 37 salagais of paddy and inasmuch as the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent, had ordered eviction. In O.P.No.35 of 1985, the landlord had filed the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1970-71 to 1983-84 on the ground that the agreed rent was 37 salagais of paddy and that the tenant had not paid the rent for above period. That was resisted by the tenant. In O.P.No.35 of 1985, the landlord had filed the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1970-71 to 1983-84 on the ground that the agreed rent was 37 salagais of paddy and that the tenant had not paid the rent for above period. That was resisted by the tenant. After enquiry, the Revenue Court, had found that there was arrears of rent for the period from 1977-78 to 1983-84 that the agreed rent was 37 salagais of paddy and that since the arrears of rent was not paid, it had ordered eviction. As already indicated against the allowed portion of the order, the tenant has filed a revision and as against the dismissed portion of the arrears of rent and finding thereon, the landlord had filed a revision. In R.A.No.1543 of 1990, the tenant had filed a petition under Sec.4 of the Rent Relief Act without depositing any amount whatsoever. He would contend that as per Sec.4 of the Rent Relief Act, he is liable to deposit the current rent and 1/ 4th of the arrears of rent, that he had already paid the amounts in the other proceedings which putting together comes to Rs.44,620 whereas the amount payable to him towards current rent and l/4th of the arrears of rent comes to Rs.44,500 and as such, the provisions to Sec.4 of the Rent Relief Act were complied with. That was resisted by the landlord who would deny the claim of the tenant. After enquiry the Revenue Court had allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has come forward with C.R.P.No.1441 of 1992. 4. That was resisted by the landlord who would deny the claim of the tenant. After enquiry the Revenue Court had allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has come forward with C.R.P.No.1441 of 1992. 4. Mr.E.Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1441 of 1992, would contend that the impugned order passed in R.A.No.1543 of 1990 is infirm for the following reasons: .(i) the current rent has not been deposited: .(ii) 1/4th of arrears of rent means the arrears calculated as on that date and 1/4th at the same and not the entire quantum of rent for the period for which rent was not paid and l/4th of the same as has been done by the Revenue Court: and (iii) the quantum of rent was the value of 37 salagais of paddy as has been fixed by the Revenue Court in the other proceedings and not Rs.3,500 which was the fair rent fixed in O.P.No.24 of 1984 which was later set aside by the Appellate Authority and remanded back to the Revenue Court and still remaining pending. Per contra, Mr.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in C.R.P.No.1441 of 1992, would submit that the landlord had not stated in his counter the quantum of rent or arrears of rent and while so, the Revenue Court was correct in allowing his application. He would further submit that even in case there was any arrears, opportunity should have been given to the tenant to deposit the same. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. To consider the above submissions, Sec.4 of the Rent Relief Act need be extracted. It reads as follows: “Option for payment of arrears of rent: (1) any cultivating tenant who is in arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the fasli year ending with the 30th day of June, 1989 and for any previous fasli year (hereinafter referred to as the said years) and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act, shall, within four months from the date of such publication, intimate his option in writing to the competent authority. .(i) to pay the current rent and the one-fourth of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in para II or (ii) to pay the current rent and the one-third of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part III of this Act for availing relief under this Act from the payment of the said arrears of rent. .(2) The option given under Sub-sec.(1) shall be final.” What has been required to be deposited are (i) current rent and (ii) one fourth of arrears of rent. Current rent has been defined in Sec.3(d) of the Rent Relief Act and it reads as follows: “"Current rent “ means the whole of the rent due for the fasli year commencing on the 1st day of July, 1989, and ending with the 30th day of June, 1990”. Admittedly, the current rent has been defined in Sec.3(d) of the Rent Relief Act, has not deposited. So, the first requirement has not been complied with. 6. So far as “one-fourth of arrears of rent” is concerned, the question as to what was the one-fourth of arrears of rent came up for consideration before this Court in M.Palanichamy v. Muthia Pillai, (1992)1 L.W. 286 . In it, Srinivasan, J. had held that the tenant is bound to pay the current rent plus one-fourth of the amount due and payable on the date of the publication of the Act, with regard to the rent payable for fasli year ending with 30th June, 1989 and previous fasli years and it can never mean that the tenant is bound to pay l/4th of the total amount of rent fixed between the parties inclusive of amounts already paid. With respect, I am in total agreement with the view expressed by Srinivasan, J. 7. In the instant case, as per the calculation made in the petition in R.A.No.1543 of 1990 the total arrears for the period from 1977-78 to 1988-89 has been stated and the total has been arrived at as Rs.44,500 and then, the amounts already paid by way of deposit in earlier proceedings is shown as Rs.44,620 and it is stated that entire arrears is paid. The mode of calculation was not one-fourth of the arrears that was remaining unpaid after adjusting the payments made for the earlier arrears. The mode of calculation was not one-fourth of the arrears that was remaining unpaid after adjusting the payments made for the earlier arrears. That is clearly against the mode of calculation held by this Court in M.Palanichanry v. Muthia Pillai, (1992)1 L.W. 286 . So, on this ground also the view of the Revenue Court that l/4th arrears of rent was paid is erroneous. .8. The third ground of attack by Mr.E.Padmanabhan is that this arrears of rent was arrived at on the basis of Rs.3,500 which is fixed as fair rent in O.P.No.24 of 1984 and that the order passed in the said O.P. was set aside and so it cannot be a basis for calculation. It is not in dispute that the order passed in O.P.No.24 of 1984 was set aside by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.l of 1989 and the matter was remitted back to the Revenue Court and the matter is still pending. While so, that cannot be considered as the prevailing rent. While that is taken out of account, we have to revert back to the findings given in O.P.No.22 of 1979 and O.P.No.35 of 1985 between the parlies. In both the above proceedings, the agreed rent was held to be 37 salagais of paddy. That has been challenged by the tenant in C.R.P.No.4068of 1986 and C.R.P.No.3885 of 1987 which I shall refer to a little later. Suffice it at this juncture, to state that the agreed rent was held to be 37 salagais of paddy by the Revenue Court in proceedings in between the parties and that is binding on the tenant as well. The calculation made in R.A.No.1543 of 1990 was not on that basis consequently, the finding of ‘the Revenue Court that the amount in deposit on the basis that fair rent is fixed at Rs.3,500 is also erroneous. 9. In view of what I have held above, for the reason that current rent and l/4th of arrears of rent have not been deposited as required under Sec.4 of the Rent Relief Act and for the reason that the arrears of rent have not been calculated on the basis of 37 salagais of paddy, the order passed by the Revenue Court in R.A.No.1543 of 1990 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Salem is set aside and R.A.No.1543 of 1990 shall stand dismissed. 10. 10. I shall now consider C.R.P.No.4068 of 1986. The revision petition is filed against the order in O.P.No.22 of 1979. In it, the Revenue Court had given a finding that the agreed rent was 37 salagais of paddy on the basis of the evidence available in that case. Mr.E.Padmanabhan, pointed out that it is in evidence that in 1953 the land was leased by 35 salagais of paddy and account books were produced. On a careful scrutiny of the order I am unable to say that the appreciation of evidence by the Revenue Court is perverse and I find no reason to fault the finding of the Revenue Court and considering the same C.R.P.No.4068 of 1986 is liable to be dismissed. .11. C.R.P.Nos.3885 and 4225 of 1987 are against the order in O.P.No.35 of 1985. As I have already indicated, the landlord had filed the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent for the period from 1970-71 to 1983-84. That was resisted by the tenant. .After enquiry the Revenue Court had found that there was arrears of rent only for the period from 1976-77 onwards and for nonpayment of the arrears of rent, had allowed the application for eviction. Regarding the quantum of rent, as I have already found the agreed rent was 37 salagais of paddy, that order of eviction passed is correct. So far as the disallowed portion is concerned the Revenue Court has pointed out that no receipt is filed to show that payment was made. But, at the same time the Revenue Court has held that inasmuch as the claim was not made for the earlier period in O.P.No.22 of 1979 wherein the claim was made only for 1976-77, he is giving the benefit of doubt to the tenant that he has given up the claim and has disallowed the claim for arrears of rent for the period prior to 1976-77. Mr.E.Padmanabhan, pointed out that in the petition in O.P.No.22 of 1979 as well as the petition O.P.No.22 of 1979 as well as the petition O.P.No.35 of 1985, the landlord has specifically stated that arrears of rent for that period was not claimed because of the stay granted by Act 3 of 1977, valid reasons has been stated for not making that claim for that period in O.P.No.22 of 1979. The basis on which the Revenue Court has given the benefit of doubt is erroneous. The admitted fact remains that no receipt is filed to show the payment during that period. While so, the dismissal, of the claim for that period on the solitary ground that claim for that period had not been made in the earlier petition is incorrect. When that reasoning is taken out, the resultant position is that no receipt was there to evidence payment and the landlord’s case that the rent for that period remained outstanding is acceptable. Consequently, the disallowing of that portion of the arrears of rent by the Revenue Court is incorrect and the order passed in O.P.No.35 of 1985 shall be modified to the extent that there was arrears of rent right from 1971-72 to 1983-84 excluding the period 197677 for which O.P.No.22 of 1979 was filed. 12. In the result C.R.P.Nos.1441 of 1992 and 4255 of 1987 shall stand allowed and C.R.P.Nos.3885 of 1987 and 4068 of 1986 shall stand dismissed. No costs.