1. This revision petition is against the order evicting the tenant for non-payment of arrears. While admitting the revision petition, the Petitioner was directed to deposit the balance of arrears. The petitioner has deposited the same. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has deposited the arrears due, Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the order of eviction has to be set aside. A Bench of this High Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 656:
'The High Court is not concerned in such proceedings with the original default committed by the cultivating tenant in payment of the rent to the landlord. It is because of this original default, the Revenue Divisional Officer directs the tenant to deposit the rent into the court before a particular date and the subject matter of the civil revision proceedings in the High Court therefore will not be the original default, but only the failure of the tenant to comply with the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Once that failure is admitted and the consequential order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is unexceptionable, there will be no occasion for the High Court to give an opportunity to the cultivating tenant to comply with the original direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to deposit the amount, because the original direction no longer stands and that direction has worked itself out in the form of a final order for eviction, which, on merits, is not challenged. if the matter is understood in this manner, certainly, any deposit made by the tenant in terms of the interim order of stay passed by this court staving the execution of the order for eviction passed by the Authorised Officer can never be tantamount to compliance with the conditional order passed by the Authorised Officer.'
2. Mr. Natarajan, no doubt argues that the revision is the continuation of the proceedings of the Revenue Court and as such this court can as well set aside the order of eviction since the arrears have been paid as directed by this court. This is what exactly the Bench of this court has not approved of in the above decision. The abovesaid observation extracted by me is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as such, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
3. It is stated by Mr. Natarajan, that there are standing crops and requested time for harvesting the same. Mr. A. C. Munuswami Reddi, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for time being granted for the harvesting of the standing crops. Accordingly the petitioner is granted time till he harvests the standing crops on the land in question.
4. Petition dismissed.