K. Shanmukham, J.
1. The tenant who lost before the Revenue Court, is the petitioner before me.
2. The landlord's application for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rents for the years 1976-77,1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 was resisted by the tenant on various grounds such as: (a) he has expended Rs. 1,900 for making a tamarind tope into a cultivating field; (b) he paid Rs. 3,000 as earnest money to the managing trustee of the landlord; (c) he had repaired the motor pumpset and spent for deepening the well at a cost of Rs. 1,500; (d) the managing trustee received from him Rs. 140 for paying the electric bills; (e) because of want of copious water supply from the well, he was not in a position to pay the arrears; (f) because of the suit O.S. No. 205 of 1970 by the landlord disputing his status as a cultivating tenant, he was unable to pay the rent; and (g) the claim is barred by time. However, ultimately, it turned out that the tenant admitted the arrears, but, only claimed adjustment referred to above. The Revenue Court rejected the plea of adjustment, held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and gave the tenant three months' time to pay the admitted arrears of rent.
3. Without availing of the above privilege extended to him by the Revenue Court, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
4. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the tenant are that as the tenant has deposited all the arrears of rent pursuant to the order made in CM.P. No. 7175 of 1981 for stay pending the revision, the tenant is entitled to have the delay condoned, as after all, the enactment is intended to protect the cultivating tenants, and also as the order of the Revenue Court has combined both the time for payment and the order of eviction, such an order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It has to be noticed that these two grounds are not raised in the grounds of revision; however, they are permitted to be raised, because one relates to the validity of the order, while the other is in recognition of the present trend of law that even subsequent events can be taken into consideration.
5. In support of the second contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision in Chinnayyah v. Nagaratknam : (1964)1MLJ389 . It is true that the learned Judge has held thus:
The terms of Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, clearly shows that in all cases of default where the Revenue Divisional Officer considers that an opportunity should be given to the tenant to pay up the arrears, there should be two stages in the proceedings. The first stage is where the Court finds that a default has been committed and decides to give an opportunity to the tenant to pay up the arrears. The second stage is when the tenant performs or fails to perform his obligation. These two stages envisaged by the section cannot be rolled into one and a single combined order passed. Such an order will be illegal as in a fit and proper case the Revenue Divisional Officer will have jurisdiction to extend the time where the tenant is prevented by sufficient cause from paying the rent.
But, here, the order reads as follows:
Therefore the respondent is ordered to deposit the lease arrears of four years, viz., 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 at the rate of Rs. 2,120 per year totalling to Rs. 8,480 within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to file execution petition.
As the order stands, it cannot be said, it had I usurped, the rights of the tenant to apply for extension of payments on valid and sufficient grounds or the right of the landlord to get an order of eviction by virtue of default in the payment of rents by the tenant. It is to be remembered that in default of payment within the time fixed or the extended time if so granted, the Revenue Court is statutorily bound to direct an order of eviction. Admittedly, the tenant did not seek for extension before the Revenue Court. Then, the Revenue Court is bound to pass an order of eviction, subject however to the order in this revision. I therefore do not find any error in the order made by the Revenue Court as it is still open to the landlord to apply for consequential order of eviction.
6. As regards the other contention, it carries no merit, nor equitable considerations lean to wards the tenant. In the instant case, the tenant claimed adjustment of rent and would not pay even after the initiation of this proceeding. His mala fide is simply exhibited from the stand in his counter where he has stated:
If the Court still finds that any arrears of rent are due from the respondent, the Court may be graciously pleased to grant one year's time and thus render justice.
A tenant who claims protection guaranteed under the Act shall observe his duties vis-a-vis the landlord as prescribed under the Act. Had the tenant simply pleaded his inability such as calamity in his family, renewed illness and the like and adduced satisfactory proof of such disability, the Court might be inclined to condone his laches. But here, the tenant has raised all possible defences known to law in his vain attempt to deny the landlord of its legitimate income. In these circumstances, it is neither just nor equitable that any indulgence should be shown to such an incorrigible tenant. Further, despite non-payment of rent, the Revenue Court granted him three months' time and yet, the tenant would not pay. It is no excuse much less a valid one to say that as the landlord disputed the tenancy he was unable to pay. There is no substance in such an argument. For, according to the tenant, he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection, guaranteed under the Act, then, he ought to have tendered the rent. In the present case, even after the initiation of the proceeding for eviction, he did not choose to tender the rent. Then this Court shall not lend its helping hand to such an incorrigible land defiant tenant. If the tenant had paid the arrears of rent pending this proceeding, it will not improve his position, because he is bound to pay the arrears of rent to its land lord.
7. The result is, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed without cost.