Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 571 (MAD)

Chinna Pillai v. A. Noorjahan & Others

2007-02-13

R.BANUMATHI

body2007
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai dated 06.06.2002 in Petition No.759 of 2000, directing the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to pay arrears of rent for Faslis 1404 to 1409. 2. 1. The First Respondent is the owner of the land and the Revision Petitioner is a Lessee under her. The First Respondent filed Petition No.759 of 2000 on the file of Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai under Section 3(4)(a) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (for short "the Act") to recover arrears of rent for the periods from 1401 to 1409 – 9 Faslis. 2. 2. The Petitioner and the First Respondent made a joint endorsement on 11.04.2002 stating that 4 kalams for single crop and 6 kalams for double crop are to be measured subject to limitation. The Revenue Court has ordered payment of arrears for Faslis 1404 to 1409 i.e., Rs.24,547/-, which is challenged in this Revision Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that on 11.04.2002, the parties made a joint endorsement on the Kuthagai payable only subject to limitation, but the Revenue Court without considering the period of limitation has erroneously passed the order, directing payment of arrears for the periods Fasli 1404 to 1409. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In the Impugned Order, the Revenue Court has found the arrears of rent due and ordered payment of arrears at Rs.24,547/-for Faslis 1404 to 1409. The Impugned Order mainly based upon the endorsement made by the parties. 4. A reading of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act shows that on receipt of an application, the Revenue Court shall after giving reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representation shall hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the Application or dismissing it. As per the Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, the Revenue Court is not empowered to direct the Tenant to deposit the time barred arrears of rent. The Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act reads as under:- "... Provided that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall not direct the cultivating Tenant to deposit such arrears of rent as have become time barred under any law of limitation for the time being in force ..." The above proviso was inserted by T.N.Act 21 of 1972. The Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act reads as under:- "... Provided that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall not direct the cultivating Tenant to deposit such arrears of rent as have become time barred under any law of limitation for the time being in force ..." The above proviso was inserted by T.N.Act 21 of 1972. When this Proviso is in statute, the Landlord cannot claim the value of the arrears of rent for the period prior to three years preceding the Petition. .5. Holding that the Landlord cannot realise the rent for the period beyond three years preceding the Petition because of the operation of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in the decision reported in A.K. Kothandarama Rao Vs Venkatachala Udayar (A.I.R. 1994 MADRAS 210) it was held as follows:- ."... For the purpose of Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, one should not take into account the arrears which fell due beyond the period of three years. When in a Civil Suit, a landlord cannot realise the rent for a period beyond three years, because of the operation of the provisions of the new Limitation Act, he cannot achieve that purpose in a petition for eviction. So the proviso to Section 3(4)(b) cannot be construed as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No discrimination between tenants who are in arrears for long period and those in arrears for short period can be read into that proviso. In fact, the proviso would bring it, in tune with a Civil claim for arrears of rent inasmuch as a period of three years is prescribed for a civil claims and this proviso limits the period of arrears of rent to three years..." .6. In view of Proviso to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act and the provisions of the Limitation Act, the Revenue Court ought not to have directed the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to pay time barred arrears of rent i.e. from 1404 to 1406 Faslis. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant is liable to pay arrears of rent only for Faslis 1407 to 1409. The Impugned Order is to be modified accordingly. 7. This Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The Impugned Order is modified to the effect that the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is to pay the arrears of rent for Faslis 1407 to 1409. No costs. The connected C.M.P.No.18908 of 2002 is closed.