Skip to content


Mohammed Nachiyar and ors. Vs. Hirudaya Dass - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 1978 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Mad81
ActsPondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1971 - Sections 3(4) and 10
AppellantMohammed Nachiyar and ors.
RespondentHirudaya Dass
Appellant AdvocateV. Radhakrishanan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThirugnanam, Adv.;S. Govindaswami, Govt. Pleader, Pondicherry
Excerpt:
pondicherry cultivating tenants protection act, 1970 section 10--order passed under section 3 (4) (a)--whether revision under section 10 lies even before the order under section 3 (4)(b)--no;in an eviction petition by he landlord, the authority under the pondicherry cultivating tenants protection act after finding that the tenant had put the land into different user and also had committed default in payment of rent granted time to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as found by it. the landlord preferred a revision questioning the order of the revenue court.;a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision that no revision would lie against an interim order was taken by the respondent.;held, viewing the order from the point raised regarding the maintainability..........mr. s. govindaswami that this revision petition under section 10 of the pondicherry cultivating tenants protection act 1970 is not maintainable since the same had been filed on the basis of an interim order which order in turn is not in any way favourable to the revision petitioners herein. the learned counsel for the respondent also submits adopting the argument advanced by the learned government pleader of pondicherry, that this revision petition is not maintainable under section 10 of the pondicherry cultivating tenants protection act, 1970. section 10 of the pondicherry cultivating tenants protection act 1970, reads as follows: -"10 the revenue court shall be deemed to be a court subordinate to the high court for the purposes of sec. 115 of the code of civil procedure 1908 and its.....
Judgment:
1. The intention of the enactment is not to give power only for the landlord to evict the tenant under some ground or other. Under the provisions of Section 3(4) (a) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protecting Act, 1970, for the grounds contemplated by the said Section, a tenant can be evicted at the instance of the landlord. In the instant case, it is common ground that the landlord-petitioner had instituted the petition in O. P. 29 of 1976 for the eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein for the conversion of the land into one for which the same had not been let in on lease to the tenant and on the ground of arrears of rent. So far as both the grounds are concerned the lower court had found in favour of the land-lord petitioners herein and the said order can be construed only as an interim order because after having found that the land had been converted into one of the Nanja land which conversion was unauthorised one the lower court had directed the tenant to deposit the amount found to be arrears of rent within the specified time.

Therefore, with respect to both the points raised on behalf of the petitioners before the lower court, the finding had been rendered in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader Mr. S. Govindaswami that this revision petition under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1970 is not maintainable since the same had been filed on the basis of an interim order which order in turn is not in any way favourable to the revision petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits adopting the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader of Pondicherry, that this revision petition is not maintainable under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970. Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1970, reads as follows: -

"10 The Revenue Court shall be deemed to be a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and its orders shall be liable to revision by the High Court under the provisions of that section."

2. Section 3 (4) (a) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1970 reads as follows: -

"3 (4) (a). Every landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant falling under sub-section (2) shall, whether or not there is an order or decree of a court for the eviction of such cultivating tenant, make an application to the Revenue Court and such application shall bear a Court fee stamp of one rupee."

3. Section 3 (4) (b) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 reads as follows:-

"3 (4) (b) (i) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Court shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make their representations, hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application of dismissing it in a case falling under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in sub-sec(3), the Revenue Court may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlords and the cultivating tenant for depositing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such costs as he may direct.

(ii) If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and if the cultivating tenant failed to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Court shall pass an order for eviction."

A scrutiny of the order questioned under the provisions of Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1970 by the petitioners herein shows that it does not suffer from any of the infirmities that can be taken as a ground for revising the order under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970. Apart from the same viewing the order from the point raised by the learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry, regarding the maintainability of the Civil Revision Provision this court finds that the said contention has to be upheld and that the revision petition is not maintainable at this stage under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970. It has to be noted that Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970, is more or less similar to the provisions available under Section 6-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1956 which reads as follows: -

` "6-B. The Revenue Divisional Officer, shall be deemed to be a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and his orders shall be liable to revision by the High Court under the provisions of that section."

4. It has also to be noted that it is only after the passing of a final order under Section 3 (4) (a) following the procedure contemplated under S. 3 (4) (b) the aggrieved party can come by way of revision under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1970 and this has been made clear in this order and that is the position of law and it is patent from a reading of provisions under Section 3 together with Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970. Under these circumstances this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable under Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act, 1970. There will be no order as to costs.

5. This Court records the services, rendered by the learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry, in elucidating and submitting his argument relating to the maintainability of the revision petition in view of the provisions under S. 3 (4) (a) and (b) together with Section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970.

6. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //