R. Sengottuvelan, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed1 by the aggrieved landlord against the order of the Rent Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Mayuram, passed in R.T.C.M.A. No. 8 of 1980.
2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:--The respondent herein, who is the tenant, filed an application E.R.P. No. 5 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Court, Tiruvarur for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, for the land's mentioned in the schedule to the application. The landlord, the civil revision petitioner herein objected to the maintainability of the fair rent application on the ground that the petitioner before the Rent Court was not a tenant and besides he also contended that the petitioner before the Rent Court is not a cultivating tenant as denned under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, since he is not cultivating the land by his own physical labour, or that of the members of his family. The Rent Court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner before it, is not proved to be a tenant of the petition-mentioned lands and dismissed the application. As against the said order, the tenant filed R.T.C.M.A. No. 8 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Mayuram and in those proceedings he filed an application for receiving a certified copy of the tenancy record prepared by the Record Officer under the provisions of Act X of 1969, as additional evidence. The learned Rent Tribunal seems to have allowed the said application and on the strength of the certified extract produced and other evidence also, the Rent Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner before the Rent Court had been proved to be a cultivating tenant in respect of the petition-mentioned1 lands and set aside the order of the Rent Court and remitted the matter to the Rent Court for fresh disposal according to law. As against the said order, this revision petition is filed by the landlord.
3. The main contention of Mr. Sivaramakrishniah, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relates to the procedure laid down in Act X of 1969, with reference to the entertainment of applications for fixation of fair rent. As per Section 14 of the said Act, every application for fixation of fair rent shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the entry in the approved record of tenancy rights relating to the land and if such certified: copy is not enclosed, the Rent Court shall require the tenant to produce a certified copy within a reasonable time to be fixed by such officer or authority and if such certified copy is not annexed or produced, the application shall be rejected, but the rejection shall hot of its own force preclude the presentation of a fresh application in respect of the same subject-matter with a certified copy annexed. According to the section, the production of a certified copy of the tenancy record is a sine que non for filing an application for fixation of fair rent. If such a certified extract is not filed, the Rent Court cannot proceed with the application, but can only give time to the tenant to produce the certified copy and in case of default on the part of the tenant to produce the certified copy, the application will have to be rejected. But in this case, the enquiry with reference to fixation of fair rent seems to have been proceeded with without the production of the certified copy of the tenancy record. Mr. Sivaramakrishnaiah takes objection to the procedure adopted by the Rent Court and contends that such a wrong procedure goes to the root of the matter and makes the entire proceedings invalid in law. On a reading of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that a certified extract of the tenancy record will have to accompany every application for fixation of fair rent and if such a certified copy is not annexed along with the application, the Courts are only empowered to grant time for production of such certified copy and if inspite of granting time, such certified copy is not produced, the Rent Court has no other alternative except to reject the application. No doubt, such rejection will not bar the tenant from filing a fresh application enclosing the certified copy of the tenancy record. In this case, I find that the whole enquiry has been proceeded with before the Rent Court without a certified copy of the tenancy record and such certified copy seems to have been received by way of additional evidence only by the Rent Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) by means of an application for receiving the certified extract as additional evidence in the appeal. Such procedure is not contemplated under Section 14 of Act X of 1969, and the procedure adopted by the Rent Tribunal in receiving the certified copy of the tenancy record in the appeal proceedings is not in accordance with the provisions of Act X of 1969, and the rules framed thereunder. Hence I have no other alternative except to set aside the order of the Rent Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Mayuram passed in R.T.C.M.A. No. 8 of 1980 and remand the matter back to the Rent Court for proceeding with the enquiry in accordance with law. It is for the Rent Court to decide whether to return the application or to grant time to the tenant to produce a certified copy of the tenancy record and on such production proceed with the enquiry afresh. Both the parties are at liberty to take all the pleas available to them under law and also at liberty to let in additional evidence. There will be no order as to costs,