Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 09.09.2002 in E.A.No.102 of 2002 in E.P.No.62 of 1999, in O.S.No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai. 2. The Executing Court, while passing orders in E.A.NO.102 of 2002 in O.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 on 09.09.2002 as among other things observed that "Heard the petitioner. Respondent called absent. No representation. The petitioner has already sought eviction of the respondent on the basis of the order passed in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 by the Honourable High Court Chennai, etc.," and resultantly ordered delivery of possession to the Respondent/plaintiff/petitioner (later deceased) by 03.10.2002. 3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 09.09.2002 passed in E.A.No.102 of 2002 in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 by the Executing Court, the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent/defendant, the impugned order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.102 of 2002 in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 09.09.2002 is contrary to law and the same is an erroneous one. 5. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent/defendant that the Executing Court has erroneously construed the order dated 21.12.2001 passed for fasli year 1406 for the second crop and for the payment of lease paddy in kind for subsequent faslis and there cannot be any delivery of possession as there is no decree at all in favour of the respondent for possession. 6. Advancing his arguments, it is a contention of the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant that when the revision petitioner being a statutory tenant entitled to protection as per Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act in and by which no Cultivating Tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof by or at the instance of his landlord and he cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provision contained under the said Act. 7. 7. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the order passed in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 speaks of to the effect "that it is open to the respondent to seek for possession but that order does not declare the entitlement of the respondent to take possession of the suit property from the revision petitioner in the present proceedings which has nothing to do with the grant of possession, hence there cannot be any order of delivery in favour of the respondent." 8. Also, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court having dismissed the E.P.No.162 of 1999 as an infructuous one, it cannot direct the delivery of possession in E.A.No.102 of 2002. 9. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that an Executing Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order against a cultivating tenant who is entitled to the protection as per Section 3(4) of the said Act and hence ought to have dismissed the application. 10. Inshort, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that the Executing Court has not looked into the material factual and legal aspects of the matter in a proper and real perspective, which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 11. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff) that their father during his life time has filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1997 against the revision petitioner/defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, Madurai. On 12.11.1997, a decree has been passed in the said suit that the revision petitioner/defendant has to measure the twenty bags of paddy (contending 48 Padi) in respect of the suit property for the fasli 1406 the second cultivation and for subsequent faslis as paddy itself, after receiving the harvest notice from the revision petitioner/defendant to the plaintiff (respondents/ deceased father) 12. In the affidavit in E.A.NO.102 of 2002 filed by the respondents father (deceased plaintiff), it is mentioned that a decree has been passed in favour of their father directing the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant to deliver 20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras measures for each crop (Bogum) from the second crop of 1406 Fasli etc. In the affidavit in E.A.NO.102 of 2002 filed by the respondents father (deceased plaintiff), it is mentioned that a decree has been passed in favour of their father directing the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant to deliver 20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras measures for each crop (Bogum) from the second crop of 1406 Fasli etc. and the revision petitioner filed E.A.NO.168/99 praying to pass an order that the decree in O.S.No.18/97 is inexecutable and incapable of execution and such E.P.No.62/1999 is to be dismissed and that an order has been passed by allowing the said application by holding that a separate suit has to be filed for collecting of rent in respect of each year. 13. Moreover, in the affidavit in E.P.No.102 of 2002, it is also averred that as against the order dated 08.10.1999 in E.A.No.168 of 1999, the petitioners father (deceased plaintiff) has filed C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 before the Honourable High Court, Madras and the Civil Revision Petition has been allowed and the order passed in E.A.NO.168/1999 has been set aside. Added further in the said Civil Revision Petition, a direction has been issued to proceed with E.P.No.62 of 1999 and dispose of the same within three months. 14. Apart from the above in C.R.P.No.2706/2000, the Honourable High Court has observed that the respondent (revision petitioner) is in arrears of rent even in respect of subsequent period after the decree in O.S.No.18/1997 and he is liable to be evicted from the land. Moreover an opportunity has been granted to the Respondents father (deceased father/plaintiff) to seek for recovery of possession in the same execution petition to evict the respondent pursuant to the order. 15. The Revision petitioner in his counter in E.A.No.102 of 2002 as among other things averred that he filed an E.A.No.168 of 1999 that in O.S.No.18 of 1997 is inexecutable one for subsequent faslies and the same has been allowed and E.P.No.62 of 1999 has been dismissed and the observation made in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 cannot be executed and the Executing Court has not jurisdiction to evict the cultivating tenant, since the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. 16. 16. Continuing further in the said counter, the revision petitioner has also added that the claims of arrears of rent without a decree is not maintainable and that the Court has to fix the arrears of rent and then pass order and for the reason of failure of crops, he is not liable to pay rent and also that there is no direction to the Executing Court to pass an order of eviction by the Honourable High Court. 17. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent/defendant in support of of the contention that the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997 lack inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in favour of the bar as per Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and as such the decree passed is nullity etc., relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarwan Kumar and Another Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal reported in (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases 147, wherein it held that the decree passed by the Civil Court lacking inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the specific bar contained in special Act governing the case would be a nullity and therefore, objection regarding invalidity of such decree can be raised at any later stage including the stage of execution of the decree or any other collateral proceedings. 18. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision of Honourable High Court in Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel reported in (2010)4 Supreme Court Cases 393, wherein it is observed as follows: "14. Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. (Vide State of Punjab V Renuka Singla reported in (1994)1 SCC 175 , State of U.P. V. Harish Chandra reported in (1996)9 SCC 309 , Union of India V. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. reported in (1996)4 SCC 453 , University of Allahabad V. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra reported in (1997)10 SCC 264 , and Karnataka SRTC V. Ashrafulla Khan reported (2002)2 SCC 560 . 19. Ltd. reported in (1996)4 SCC 453 , University of Allahabad V. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra reported in (1997)10 SCC 264 , and Karnataka SRTC V. Ashrafulla Khan reported (2002)2 SCC 560 . 19. The Learned Counsel for the respondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff) places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., V. Machado Brothers and Others reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093, wherein it is laid down as follows: "If there is no specific provision which prohibits the grant of relief sought in an application filed under Section 151, the Courts have all the necessary powers under Section 151 to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, the Court exercising the power under Section 151, CPC first has to consider whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other provisions of the Code and if there is no such prohibition then the Court will consider whether such power should be exercised or not on the basis of facts mentioned in the application." 20. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that Section 3 (4)(1) speaks as follows: "Right to restoration of possession: Every cultivating tenant who was in possession of any land on the 1st December, 1953 and who is not in possession thereof at the commencement of this Act shall, on application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, be entitled to be restored to such possession on the same terms as those applicable to the possession of the land on the 1st December 1953." 21. Also, Section 3(4)(a) of the Act enjoins as follows: "the total extent of land held by such landlord inclusive of the land, if any, held by him as a tenant does not exceed the extent specified in the Explanation below." 22. This Court aptly points out the decision in N.Sreedharan Thampi V. Velayadhan Pillai, reported in AIR 1984 Mad 100 , wherein it is held that where the defendants are cultivating tenants, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree for possession in view of the specific provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act and the matter has to be gone into only by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the relief asked for, namely, recovery of possession. 23. 23. In this Connection it is not out of place for this Court to make a relevant mention that the effect of the proviso inserted to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act is that the Revenue Court is not empowered to direct the tenant to deposit the time barred arrears of rent as per the decision in Palani Gounder V. S.P.Thangavel Gounder reported in 1988(1) Mad.L.W. 499. 24. The Learned Counsel for the respondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff) submits that in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000, dated 21.12.2001 (between Respondents father/the deceased plaintiff Vs. respondent(defendant), it is inter alia observed by the High Court that in view of the admitted fact of arrears of rent, it is unnecessary to compel the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings to evict the respondent. Since the respondent is undisputedly in arrears of rent and evading the payment on technical grounds, this Court is of the view that he is liable to surrender possession to the petitioner. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to seek for recovery of possession also in the same execution petition to evict the respondent. 25. It is to be pointed out that merely because an observation has been made by this Court in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 dated 21.12.2001, "... that it is open to the petitioner to seek for recovery of possession also in the execution petition to evict the respondent." the same will not be of any assistance to the Respondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff), because the relief of possession has to be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer only as opined by this Court. 26. It is also brought to the notice of the High Court that the Respondent/Defendant is not adhered to the additional order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.18290 of 2002 in C.R.P.No.1747 of 2002 dated 27.10.2005, wherein he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) to the credit of E.P.No.62 of 1999, on or before 30.11.2005, failing which, stay granted shall be dismissed. 27. As far as the present case is concerned, the decree passed in O.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997 is in favour of the Respondents father (deceased plaintiff) in directing the Revision petitioner(Defendant) to deliver 20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras Measures for each crop from the second crop of 1406 fasli. 27. As far as the present case is concerned, the decree passed in O.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997 is in favour of the Respondents father (deceased plaintiff) in directing the Revision petitioner(Defendant) to deliver 20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras Measures for each crop from the second crop of 1406 fasli. Therefore, it is candidly clear that there is no decree in O.S.No.18 of 1997 for evicting the revision petitioner/defendant from the land. As per Section 3(4) of the Act, the issue of evicting the revision petitioner/Defendant from the land is to be gone into only by the Revenue Divisional Officer, namely the recovery of possession. Also A Revenue Court under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act will not have the power to remit the rent due by a tenant on the ground of failure of crop as per the decision of the High Court in P.Ramaswamy Gounder and another V Perianna Moopan reported in (1959)1 Mad LJ 122. In the aforesaid decision it is held as follows: "In the absence of any statutory provision enabling an authority to grant remission, it is always a matter of grace by the landlord. A Revenue Court under the Madras Cultivating Tenant Protection Act has no power to grant remission of the agreed rent due by a tenant or any portion of it on the ground of failure of crop. The Court has to ascertain the arrears of rent due on the basis of the contract between the parties and the only remedy, if any, open to the tenant is to apply for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Act." 28. E.A.No.102 of 2002 filed by the Respondents Father (the Deceased plaintiff) is not maintainable in law and subsequently, the order for delivery of possession passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.102 of 2002, dated 09.09.2002 is hereby set aside, to prevent the aberration of justice. Subsequently, the Civil Revision Petition succeeds. 29. Inthe result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The order passed by the Executing Court, dated 09.09.2002 in E.A.No.102 of 2002 ordering delivery of possession by the Civil Revision Petitioner is hereby set aside and E.A.No.102 of 2002 stands dismissed.