S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.
1. This civil revision petition arises from an interlocutory finding reached by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur in 0. S. No. 47 of 1962, holding that the determination of amount of rent Under Section 3 (3) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants* Protection Act will not be res judicata in a suit filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent. Normally. I would have dismissed this civil revision petition on the short ground that it is not the practice of this Court to interfere: with interlocutory findings given by a Subordinate Court when the main matter before it had not finally been disposed of. That rule is a sound one, for the aggrieved party can always challenge the correctness of such findings in any appeal that he may file if the Judgment in the suit or proceeding ultimately goes against him. But it is unnecessary for me to adopt that procedure now for I find that the view taken fry the learned District Munsif is entirely correct and is supported by authority. The jurisdiction of the revenue Court Under Section 3 (3) of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a special limited jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling the tenant to deposit rent to avoid wrangles between the landlord and the tenant in relation thereto. The determination of the question of arrears of rent Under Section 3 (3) of the Act therefore is merely to provide an agency for that purpose. If the amount ascertained as rent by the revenue Court is not paid, the statute provides a sanction by way of eviction.
2. The particular jurisdiction to determine the question whether there were arrears of rent Under Section 3 (3) of the Act being vested purely for the purpose designated by the statute, a determination of it thereunder cannot be decisive of the question as to what exactly was the extent of arrears of rent when a question of the right of the landlord to recover the rent arises. That matter, involving as it does, the rights between the parties can only be agitated in a properly constituted suit in a civil Court. It is true that Section 8 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court; but that is only in regard to matters for which provision has been made in the Act; for example, where a landlord files an application for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent, it might be necessary for the revenue Court with a view to exercise its jurisdiction to order eviction, to determine incidentally whether there were arrears of rent or not. Such determination can be regarded as made only for the limited purpose of exercising jurisdiction Under Section 3 (3) or 3 (4) i.e., for the purposes mentioned in the Act. Therefore Section 6 cannot take away the right of the landlord to recover whatever is due to him under the law. Such rights can be enforced as I said only under the general law. Indeed it will be seen that there is no provision in the Act to enable a landlord to recover arrears of rent as such from his defaulting tenant. It has been held by this Court in Venkatachala Odayar v. Ramachandra Odayar, : AIR1961Mad423 , that the determination of the question whether a cultivating tenant is in arrears of rent or not, for the purpose of ordering his eviction will not operate as 'res judicata' in a subsequent civil suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of. arrears of rent. That principle, in my view, will apply to the present case. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.