Judgment : 1. This revision was heard after listing it for final disposal to-day. The order passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Revenue Court and the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act in P.No.40 of 1988 dated 24. 89 filed under Section 3(4) (a) of the Act 25 of 1955 for the eviction of the tenant by name T.Dhakshinamoorthy by the landlord by name V.Rajamanickam Chettiar was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove the wilful default of the tenant in the payment of rent. 2. By virtue of section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act No.25 of 1955, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlord on the ground that the rent for the demised land consists of 10 cents in survey No.230/3 and an extent of 3.20 acres situated in survey No.231 in Azinjamangalam village in Nagapattinam Taluk at the rate of the compulsory rental of 78 kalams of paddy has not been paid by the tenant to the petitioner/landlord for two years, namely 1395 and 1396 Faslis which correspond to the year 1985-86. The agreement between the landlord and the tenant was that irrespective of the yielding, the compulsory quantum of rent was 78 kalams of paddy to be paid every year and that was decided in O.S.No.216 of 1971 as well as in O.S.No.126 of 1986. However, forthe Fasli year 1395 two crops were taken by the tenant, but for the subsequent Fasli year 1396 there was only one crop was harvested by the tenant. Besides, there was a lease-deed, executed in the year 1966 fo r the Fasli 1376, which has been relied and marked as Ex.R-1. Accordingly, the rental for the demised land is 78 kalams payable during the season of harvesting at 38 kalams from ‘Kuruvai’ and at 40 kalams from Samba’ 3. Besides, there was a lease-deed, executed in the year 1966 fo r the Fasli 1376, which has been relied and marked as Ex.R-1. Accordingly, the rental for the demised land is 78 kalams payable during the season of harvesting at 38 kalams from ‘Kuruvai’ and at 40 kalams from Samba’ 3. The respondent/tenant resisted the said claim of the landlord by contending that he was cultivating the lands for the last more than 22 years and that the agreed quantum of rent of 78 kalams of paddy payable and that in case there was only one crop for the year 1395 and 1396, the agreed quantum of rental was 38 kalams of paddy payable and for the two relevant period Fasli year since he has harvested only one crop as per the prevailing then, he is liable to pay at the ratio of 75:25 as per the Act prevailing then for the two Faslis covered in 1395 and 1396 and to substantiate the same, he has relied on Ex.R-2, copy of the Adangal Extract. He has simply denied that there exists no written or agreement for the rentals quantum of rent payable for the relevant period above referred. 4. On considering the entire matter after recording the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Deputy Collector has found that for the relevant period of the tenancy under Faslis 1395 and 1396, there was no agreed quantum of rent, nor any rent deed and if that was the position the provisions of section 4 of the Act then prevails and accordingly the tenant is liable to pay only at the ratio specified in the Act which has to decide at 75:25 ratio. Accordingly, he has decided the rent payable for the two faslis under the Act 17 of 1980 for the above two years is 48 kalams and 9 marakkals and the value of which has been quantified by the court below as Rs.3,997.00 and accordingly directed the respondent to pay or deposit the sum on or before 30.6.1988. The Bar has stated that the order passed by the learned Special Deputy Collector has been fully complied with. However, the said order is being challenged is this revision. 5. I have heard the Bar for the respective parties for and against the impugned order under this revision. The Bar has stated that the order passed by the learned Special Deputy Collector has been fully complied with. However, the said order is being challenged is this revision. 5. I have heard the Bar for the respective parties for and against the impugned order under this revision. The only objection and ground raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is that even assuming that there was no agreement or rent deed fixing the quantum of rent for the relevant Fasli years 1395 and 1396 in as much as no fair rent has been fixed, the court below has no right to fix the rent as per section 4 of the Act 17 of 1980 and arrive at the figure in money at Rs.3,997.00 is not correct at all and that, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. The above contention was controverted by Mr.Rangarathnam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, by saying that the absence of any rent deed or agreement in fixing the quantum of rent for any Fasli year would automatically empower the court, namely, the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court/Competent authority under the Act to fix the quantum of rent as per the provisions of law prevailing then and accordingly to dispose of the case between a landlord and a tenant and that exactly what was done in this case also by invoking his power under the provisions of the Act 17 of 1980. While saying so, the learned counsel for the respondent justified and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Special Deputy Collector. 7. In the context of the above rival position the only point which arises for consideration is whether the learned Special Deputy Collector under section 3(4)(a) of the Act 17 of 1980 directing the respondent to deposit the said quantum of rent as provided under section 3(4)(a) of the Act. 8. Admittedly for the year under Faslis 1395 and 1396 there was no written lease deed or agreement between the landlord and the tenant in any form either expressly or impliedly. Though more than one decisions rendered in civil court has been claimed and written lease-deed has been claimed and written lease-deed has been referred to in the year 1966 that would render no help to decide the question as to what was the quantum of rent for the fasli years 1395 and 1396. Though more than one decisions rendered in civil court has been claimed and written lease-deed has been claimed and written lease-deed has been referred to in the year 1966 that would render no help to decide the question as to what was the quantum of rent for the fasli years 1395 and 1396. The provisions of the Act 17 of 1980 has to be invoked. If that is so, I may observe straight away that the learned Special Deputy Collector was perfectly and totally correct in holding and quantifying the rental at the ratio of 75:25 as provided by the Act for the simple reason that there was no rent deed or agreement between the parties herein with regard to the quantum of rent payable for the said period. In Nachal Achi v. Sowrimuthu Udayar , 1962 (I) MLJ 361 a learned single Judge of this Court while discussing the scope of the facts on identical nature under the provisions of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, has observed as follows:- “Obviously the Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to dismiss the petitions on the ground that no fair rent had been fixed in the case. If no fair rent had been fixed, it was his duty to find out what was the rent payable under the contract. If there was a contract applicable to the parties or under the law. In one portion of his order, the Deputy Collector has expressed the view that the rent payable to the landlord would be 50 percent of the gross produce because that was the rent which the tenants h ad agreed to pay in the previous year, namely, 1956-57. The Deputy Collector found that the agreement held good for 1957-58 also. On the other hand, the evidence in the case shows that there was no agreement between the parties as to how the produce was to be shared in 1957-58 because the tenants were insisting upon their rights to pay only 40 percent, of the produce, while the landlord was not willing to accept the reduced share. This is therefore not a case where there was a contract as regards rent which was agreed to by all the parties. In the absence of such a contract, the Deputy Collector was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract rent between the parties was 50 percent for the landlord. This is therefore not a case where there was a contract as regards rent which was agreed to by all the parties. In the absence of such a contract, the Deputy Collector was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the contract rent between the parties was 50 percent for the landlord. What is fair rent is defined by section 4 of Act of 1956. It is 40 percent of the normal gross produce of its value in money. In this case, it must be gross of the question. Since the paddy or grain that was produced would not be available it would be the duty of the Deputy Collector to fix the value of the rent payable in kind by taking the market rate for such grain. Section 3 of Act XXIV of 1956 declares the liability of a tenant to pay only rent in accordance with the fair rent payable under the Act. This declaration of the law takes effect from the date when the Act comes into force. But where the rent is payable not by reason of any agreement between the parties but only by reason of the provisions of the statute law, the rent payable would be fair rent as defined in section 4 of Act XXIV of 1956. 9. From the ratio decided by this Court in the above case law for the reason it can be squarely made applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is desirable that the learned Special Deputy Collector while passing the impugned order in this revision, has made a correct approach in quantifying the rentals payable for the period covered under two Faslis, namely Faslis 1395 and 1396 and accordingly, he has arrived at a figure to be paid on or before a particular date. For the reason of no express or implied agreement with regard to the quantum of rentals payable. It is futile to argue that unless and until the course of law or the competent authority under the Act decided and fixes the fair rent then for no right to entertain the petition or fix the quantum in a case which was filed in a case under section 3(4)(a) of the Act for the reason of the above legal ratio. I am fully satisfied to hold that the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot at all be countenanced. I am fully satisfied to hold that the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot at all be countenanced. On a careful consideration of the whole matter in its every breadth and length I fully endorse my view with the contentions advanced by Mr.Rangaratnam learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and accordingly, I am to hold that I do not come across any illegality or impropriety or any merit warranting my indulgence to interfere in this revision. In short to say the revision lacks any merit of no other points were raised before me. 10. In the result, for all the reasons afore-mentioned, the revision fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruvarur in P.No.40 of 1988, dated 24. 1989 is hereby maintained. However, there will be no order as to costs under the circumstances of the case.