Ramachandra Iyer, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order for eviction, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, in C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956.
2. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent-landlord applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, in C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he defaulted in the payment of rent. The petition came up for hearing on 6th August, 1956, when the parties entered into a compromise. The arrears of rent due to the respondent from 30th August, 1955 to 6th August, 1956, were ascertained, and, after remitting a portion thereof, the parties agreed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 1,050 in two instalments of Rs. 500 and Rs. 550 on or before 6th September, 1956 and 6th October, 1956, respectively. There were also other terms to the compromise. Those terms recorded an agreement between the parties, by which the tenant was to be in possession of the land for a further period of three years, on an annual rent of Rs. 1,200. The agreement stipulated for the execution of a registered lease deed, embodying certain terms. The rent of Rs. 1,200 was to be paid in advance in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 600 was to be paid within four months from 6th August, 1956, and the second instalment of a like amount was to be paid by 6th February, 1957. The agreement also stipulated regular payment in advance of the two instalments of rent for the succeeding years and for delivery of possession on 6th August, 1959. In case of default, the tenant was to pay interest at 5 1/2 per cent, per annum on the arrears. Finally, the agreement stipulated to this effect:
The counter-petitioner (tenant) should, within a period of one month and at his own expense, execute a lease deed. If there is a default in the payment of the amounts specified either on 6th September, 1956, or on the due dates mentioned above, the petitioner (landlord) will be entitled to take possession of the properties through Court. The counter-petitioner agrees to this.
3. The landlord, alleging that there was a default in the payment of the advance rent for February, 1959, applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, for eviction, in terms of the memorandum of compromise. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued a warrant for delivery of possession. It may be noticed that C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956, was filed only for arrears of rent in regard to the year 1955-56. The terms of the compromise however referred to matters beyond the scope of the petition, in that it provided for a further lease for three years on certain terms and conditions and for eviction of the tenant, in case there was default in the regular payment of rent. It is not, however, known whether the parties entered into a registered lease arrangement, as contemplated in the terms. The tenant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass the order for eviction. The compromise entered into on 6th August, 1956, though recorded by the Court in so far as it went beyond the scope of the application, was nothing more than an agreement between the parties. That agreement could not confer jurisdiction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to evict the tenant, regardless of the provisions of Act XXV of 1955. In case there was a default in the payment of rent, the remedy of the respondent would be to apply to the Court under Section 4 of Act XXV of 1955 for eviction of the tenant. But what is contended for the respondent is that there is a lawful compromise, recorded in C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956, under which the Revenue Divisional Officer will have jurisdiction to pass the order for eviction. Section 3 of the Act states:
No cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof, during the continuance of this Act, by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise.
Section 3(4)(a) provides for an application for eviction and the procedure to be adopted in the disposal of such an application. It is clear from the provisions of the section that the Revenue Divisional Officer should hold a summary enquiry into the matter and pass an appropriate order in the application. Therefore, there could be no eviction of the tenant, unless there has been an enquiry in an application made in chat behalf as to whether there had been default in the payment of rent. In the present case, no application under Section 3(4)(a) for eviction was filed. There has been no enquiry either. The Revenue Divisional Officer treated the application as one for execution, and directed delivery of possession. The basis of the order was the compromise agreement, dated 6th August, 1956. In my opinion, that agreement, in so far as it went beyond the subject-matter of the application, namely, the arrears for the year 1955-56, cannot be held to confer jurisdiction on the Revenue Divisional Officer to execute the decree. The respondent could only apply for eviction, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. The Civil Revision Petition succeeds, and is allowed with costs.