ORDER : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Eviction Order dated 31.01.2018 in PCTPA.No.1/2012 passed by the first respondent and allow the Civil Revision Petition and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.) This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the eviction order dated 30.01.2018 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2012 passed by the first respondent. 2. The revision petitioner is a tenant. In the year 2006, the revision petitioner had been permitted as a lessee over the scheduled mentioned property to cultivate for a sum of Rs.3,000/- per year as lease amount by the brother of the third respondent herein by name, Kaliyavarathan, son of Gopal Kounder. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an unregistered sale agreement dated 18.01.2010 was entered between the revision petitioner and one Mrs.Ponnammal for purchasing the petition mentioned property for total sale price as Rs.1,50,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- on the same date. As the revision petitioner was already in possession of the said property by way of lease and continued to carry out cultivation in the property, he is not liable to pay any lease amount/rent to the said property because almost the entire sale amount, except Rs.5,000/-, was paid under the said sale agreement. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the petition for eviction was filed by the third respondent herein under Section 3(2)(b) r/w Section 4 (a) of Pondicherry Cultivation Tenants Protection Act, 1970 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2012 on the ground of willful default in paying the rent. The first respondent passed the order of eviction dated 31.01.2018. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to put forth his case and the provisions of Section 3 (4)(b)(i) of the Pondicherry Cultivation Tenants Protection Act, 1970 was not followed by the first respondent. There is no default clause in the agreement that the advance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- paid by the revision petitioner to the third respondent will be forfeited. 6. There is no default clause in the agreement that the advance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- paid by the revision petitioner to the third respondent will be forfeited. 6. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the Memorandum dated 22.07.2019, in which, it is mentioned that the Thasildar Taluk Office, Bahour is directed to execute the order by evicting the tenant from the disputed property and send a report on or before 09.08.2019. According to the learned counsel, no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Authority before issuing the said Memorandum. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court reported in (1984) 1 MLJ 11 in the case of Thamirassu Vs Kamalathammal, in which, it was held that the procedure contemplated in Section 3 (4)(b)(i) was not followed by the Authorities before ordering eviction and that the order passed by the Authority was quashed and the civil revision petition was allowed by this Court. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale agreement dated 18.01.2010 entered between the revision petitioner and the third respondent is not disputed by way of reply or rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the revision petitioner before the first respondent Authority. 9. He further submitted that when the civil revision petition came up for admission, this Court by order dated 19.12.2019 directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- on or before 20.01.2021 and the same was complied with by the revision petitioner and, as on date, the amount is still lying to the credit to P.T.C.P.A.No.1 of 2012. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 fairly submitted that the procedures contemplated under Section 3(4)(b)(i) of the Act was not followed by the first respondent Authority before passing the order of eviction and the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to this case. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the sale agreement dated 18.01.2010 is an unregistered one and the revision petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance and the revision petitioner has committed willful default in paying the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month to the third respondent. 12. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the sale agreement dated 18.01.2010 is an unregistered one and the revision petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance and the revision petitioner has committed willful default in paying the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month to the third respondent. 12. She further submitted that the revision petitioner is a tenant from the year 2006 and a settlement deed dated 19.08.2010 was executed in favour of the third respondent by her mother namely Mrs.Ponnammal and the revision petitioner has entered into a sale agreement with her mother viz., Mrs.Ponnammal. 13. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 14. The petition was filed by the third respondent herein for eviction under Section 3(2)(b) r/w Section 4 (a) of the Pondicherry Cultivation Tenants Protection Act, 1970 in PTCPA.No.1 of 2012. 15. It is pertinent to note that before passing the order of eviction, the procedures contemplated under Section 3(4)(b) have to be followed by the Authority. The above provision is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:- "Section 3(4)(b)(i). On receipt of such application, the Revenue Court shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representations, hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it and in a case falling under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the Revenue Court may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct." 16. It is crystal clear and evident from the order passed by the first respondent dated 31.01.2018 and thereafter, the execution order dated 22.07.2019, that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the revision petitioner. 17. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the first and second respondents has fairly submitted that the provisions contemplated in Section 3(4)(b)(i) of the Pondicherry Cultivation Tenants Protection Act, 1970 were not followed by the first respondent before passing the order of eviction against the revision petitioner. 18. 17. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the first and second respondents has fairly submitted that the provisions contemplated in Section 3(4)(b)(i) of the Pondicherry Cultivation Tenants Protection Act, 1970 were not followed by the first respondent before passing the order of eviction against the revision petitioner. 18. It is also pertinent to note that in view of the unregistered sale agreement dated 18.01.2010, the revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-, out of a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.5,000/- has to be paid by the revision petitioner to the third respondent which is an admitted fact and not disputed by the third respondent. 19. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the advance amount is with the third respondent/landlord. Hence, there is no question of default committed by the revision petitioner as alleged by the third respondent. The judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the present case and that the eviction order is liable to be set aside. 20. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid down by this Court, the eviction order passed in PTCPA.No.1 of 2012 dated 31.01.2018 by the first respondent is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.