1. This revision is preferred challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, passed in an un filed civil revision petition (C. F. R. 1825) dt. 20-4-1982, confirming the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam in P. T. 185 of 1980.
2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent temple in respect of cultivable lands. The respondent filed P. T. No. 185 of 1980 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent for faslis 1388 and 1389, amounting to Rs. 9680. The petitioner admitted the arrears and prayed for time. The Revenue Court has been repeatedly granting time for payment. On all the adjourned dates, the petitioner has been paying amounts in driblets, on 26-2-1982, the tenant offered only Rs. 500 though as on that date there was an arrear of Rs. 5480. The .respondent-landlord having refused to receive the amount, the Revenue Court passed an order of eviction. As against the said order of eviction the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Judge, West Thanjavur, who rejected the revision in limine holding that there was nothing to show that the Revenue Court has exercised any jurisdiction not vested with it or that it has failed to exercise any jurisdiction vested with it. Hence this revision petition.
3. Mr. R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, contends that the Revenue Court having granted time till 26-2-1981, erred in passing an order of eviction on the same day since the petitioner can pay the balance of the lease amount, at any time before the court rises for the day. According to him, there is nothing to show from the records that the court had waited till it rose for the day. In such a case, it is contended by the learned counsel, that it is incumbent on the Revenue Court to adjourn the matter to a subsequent date for passing an order of eviction and if on that date it transpired that the amount had not been paid as directed, an order of eviction may follow. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision reported in Ganapath Padayachi v. Gnanasambanda Pandarasannadhi, (1965) 78 MLW 351, where Natesan J. held that when the court fixed a date for fulfilment of certain condition, the person on whom the obligation is imposed, will have all the day for complying with the order. Sathiadev J. in a recent decision reported in Srinivasa Thevar v. Thirugnanasambandar, 1982 TLNJ 168 followed the above principle laid down by Natesan J. Applying the above principle to the facts of this case, I have no. hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Revenue Court on 26-2-1981, up to which date time for payment was given, is clearly erroneous. It is now brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire arrears have since been paid.
4. Under these circumstances, this is a fit case where the order of the Court below will have to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside and this revision is allowed and the matter (P. T. 185 of 1980) is remanded to the Revenue Court for further disposal in accordance with law. No costs.
5. Revision allowed.