Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 178 (MAD)

P. Thangavelu v. Mangayarkarasi

2004-02-13

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment :- The revision petitioner is the cultivating tenant and the revision petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Cuddalore dated 2.12.1999. 2. The respondent herein through her power of attorney agent T.Sivachockalingam filed petition under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, claiming that the revision petitioner as cultivating tenant failed to pay rent for the faslis 1403 to 1405 and that the revision petitioner is to be evicted from the lands mentioned hereunder cultivated by him and owned by the respondent herein:- The petition was taken on file on 2.9.1996 which was being adjourned time and again and on 21.3.1997 an interim order was passed directing the cultivating tenant, the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.15,832.00 towards lease arrears on or before 22.7.1997 in four instalments, viz., 22.4.1997, 22.5.1997, 22.6.1997 and 22.7.1997. It appears, no amount was paid as ordered and when the petition was finally taken on 2.12.1999, the eviction order was passed directing the cultivating tenant to hand over possession. Challenging the said order, the cultivating tenant has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3. This Court, as per order dated 23.6.2000 made in C.M.P.No.8486 of 2000 granted interim stay on condition the cultivating tenant, the revision petitioner herein deposits a sum of Rs.7,500/- before the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Court), Cuddalore within a period of three weeks from that date. Further, as per order dated 20.7.2000 another two weeks time was granted from that date. The Officer before whom the amount has to be deposited was amended as per the order dated 20.7.2000 made in C.M.P.No.9804 of 2000 and hence, further one week was granted from 4.8.2000. It appears, the above amount has to be deposited on or before 11.8.2000 in the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore. In the mean time possession was handed over to the owner, viz., the respondent herein on 3.8.2000. The revision petitioner also deposited the sum of Rs.7,500/- as ordered by this Court on 8.8.2000 within the time finally allowed by this Court by way of demand draft. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly argued that such handing over of the possession pursuant to the eviction order passed is not proper. The revision petitioner also deposited the sum of Rs.7,500/- as ordered by this Court on 8.8.2000 within the time finally allowed by this Court by way of demand draft. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly argued that such handing over of the possession pursuant to the eviction order passed is not proper. It is further submitted that without even causing notice to the cultivating tenant, viz., the revision petitioner, the eviction order so passed is not proper and especially during the pendency of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1997 (Act No.20 of 1997)(herein after referred to as "the Act"). The learned counsel referring the Section 7(1) of the Act, contended that since the revision petitioner has been dispossessed he is entitled to seek restoration of possession. The learned counsel relied on the decision Kaliammal – vs. - V.Subramanian reported in 2001(2) C.T.C. 37 , wherein this Court has held:- "Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. This Act was amended by Act 20 of 1997 and Section 7(1) of the Amended Act enable any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from any land on or after 1.7.1996 on the ground that such tenant was in arrears of rent could seek restoration of possession." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that inasmuch as the possession has already been handed over to the respondent herein, the revision petitioner is not entitled to seek restoration of possession as per the Act 20 of 1997, in that after the period of expiry as per that Act on 30.6.1999, only the eviction order was passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore on 2.12.1999 and as such pursuant to such order, the handing over of the possession is very much proper. 6. Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1997 (Act 20 of 1997) came into force on the first day of July 1996 and is to be in force upto and inclusive of 30th June, 1999. 6. Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1997 (Act 20 of 1997) came into force on the first day of July 1996 and is to be in force upto and inclusive of 30th June, 1999. As per Section 3(ii) of the Act, during the continuance of the Act no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part there of by or at the instance of the landlord or the public trust concerned whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise on the ground that the cultivating tenant is in arrears with respect to the rent payable to the landlord or to the public trust as the case may be. As per section 4(b) of the Act, all suits proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings for the eviction of a cultivating tenant on the ground that he is in arrears with respect to the rent payable to the landlord or to the public trust, as the case may be and pending before a Revenue Divisional Officer, an authorised officer, a court or other authority as the case may be shall stand stayed. As per Section 6 of the Act all applications for the eviction of a cultivating tenant under Tenants Protection Act or under Chapter III of the Public Trusts Act, as the case may be, and all suits and proceedings stayed under this Act shall after the expiration of this Act, be proceeded with subject to the provisions of any law which may then be in force, from the stage which had been reached time the application, suit or other proceedings was stayed. Under Section 7(1) of the Act any cultivating tenant who had been evicted from any land on or after the 1st day of July 1996 but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, on the ground that such cultivating tenant was in arrears with respect to the rent payable to the landlord or the public trust as the case may be shall on application to the Revenue Divisional Officer or the authorised Officer as the case may be within a period of three months after the date of such publication be entitled to be restored to possession of such land and to hold it with all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a cultivating tenant under the Tenant Protection Act or under the Public Trusts Act, as the case may be, provided that the application may be received after the period of three months aforesaid, but before the expiry of this Act, if the applicant satisfies the Revenue Divisional Officer or the authorised Officer, as the case may be that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period of three months. 7. The fact remains that the proceedings were pending before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore and the petition C.T.P.No.84 of 1996 was taken on file on 2.9.1996. It appears, an interim order was passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore, on 21.3.1997 directing the cultivating tenant, the revision petitioner herein to pay the arrears of Rs.15,832.00 in four instalaments without ordering to stay the proceedings under the Act 20 of 1997. This Court granted interim stay on condition of deposit of Rs.7,500/- to which three weeks time was granted as per order dated 23.6.2000 in C.M.P.No.8486 of 2000 and ultimately, the time was extended till 11.8.2000 as per order dated 4.8.2000 in C.M.P.No.8486 of 2000. Hence, the order made by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore, with regard to handing over the possession to the respondent herein is thoroughly improper. Hence, the order made by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore, with regard to handing over the possession to the respondent herein is thoroughly improper. It appears from the affidavit filed in C.M.P.No.11079 of 2000 that when the revision petitioner approached the Revenue Court, to deposit the amount of Rs.7,500/- as ordered by this Court, it was not accepted by issuing chalan, in that the order of this Court referred as Special Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Court), Cuddalore with whom the amount has to be deposited and after the amendment and again there was some mistake in naming the officer and ultimately after the name of the officer was amended properly and when the revision petitioner approached along with the order of this Court, the chalan was refused to deposit and also to make necessary endorsement which made the revision petitioner to send the amount by way of demand draft dated 8.8.2000. Therefore, such order of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore dated 2.12.1999 ordering eviction of the revision petitioner is to be set aside, in that the Special Deputy Collector(Revenue Court), Cuddalore not only has not followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act 20 of 1997 and also handed over possession on 3.8.2000, despite the fact the stay was granted by this Court and as such, the revision petitioner is entitled for restoration of possession as claimed by setting aside the order of the Special Deputy Collector(Revenue Court), Cuddalore dated 2.12.1999. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost. The order dated 2.12.1999 made in C.T.P.No.84 of 1996 by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore is set aside. The Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore is directed to restore the possession to the revision petitioner on receiving necessary application from the revision petitioner, immediately. However, it is made clear that the revision petitioner is to pay up-to-date lease arrears by June, 2004. Consequently, connected C.M.P.Nos.8486 and 11079 of 2000 are closed.