P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of the order passed in T.C.T.P. No. 66 of 1972 dated 30th March, 1974 on the file of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The said petition was filed by the tenant under Section 3 (3) and Rule 3 of Act XXV of 1955 depositing Rs. 540 towards the rent payable to the landlord for one year from 1st July, 1971. The prayer in that petition is that the landlord may be directed to receive the rent deposited. This petition is in accordance with Section 3 (3) of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 which says that:
A cultivating tenant may deposit in Court the rent or, if the rent is payable in kind, its market value on the date of the deposit to the account of the landlord.
While the petition was pending Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 came into being in order to provide relief to cultivating tenants in respect of certain arrears of rent. As per Section 3 (1) (a) of Act XXI of 1972:
All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord and outstanding on the 30th June, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as arrears of rent) shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefor, if such cultivating tenant:
(i) has before the date of the publication of this Act paid to the landlord or deposited in the Court or before the competent authority to the account of the landlord, or
(ii) pays or deposits in the manner specified in Clause (b) within six months from the date of the publication of this Act; or
(iii) is deemed to have paid or deposited under this Act : the whole of the rent due for the fasli year commencing on the 1st July, 1971 and ending with the 30th June, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the current rent).
Section 4 of Act XXI of 1972 contemplates an application by the cultivating tenant to reopen the proceeding and pass an order that the rent so paid or deposited shall be deemed to have been paid or deposited towards the current rent.
2. While the application was pending, the tenant invoked the provisions of Act XXI of 1972 in the open Court to the knowledge of the respondent, orally and prayed that inasmuch as the rent due for the fasli year commencing from 1st July, 1971 and ending with 30th June, 1972 has been paid by the petitioner (tenant) it should be deemed to be current rent deposited by the petitioner. On this representation the landlord, who is the petitioner herein, contended that the scopes contemplated under Act XXV of 1955 and Act XXI of 1972 are different and as such the petitioner (tenant) cannot be given relief under Act XXI of 1972. The Authorised Officer, holding that the deposit made by the petitioner (tenant) is in accordance with the lease agreement, and also observing that the landlord had notice of the prayer made by the tenant to invoke the provisions of Act XXI of 1972, granted the relief to the tenant under Act XXI of 1972.
3. Mr. Ramanujam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (landlord) submits that Section 4 of the Act contemplates an application and since no application has been filed invoking the provisions of Act XXI of 1972, the Court below has no jurisdiction to grant the relief to the respondent herein.
4. It is clear from the facts of this case that the tenant made representation to the Court in virtue of Act XXI of 1972 that he may be given relief inasmuch as he has paid the agreed rent for the period 1st July, 1971 to 30th June, 1972 on 27th June, 1972. Actually the Act XXI of 1972 came into force only on nth August, 1972. At that time the petition was pending. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Authorised Officer to the effect that the prayer made by the tenant can be taken as an application filed under Act XXI of 1972. In effect, it means that the Authorised Officer converted the application under Section 3 (3) of Act XXV of 1955 into one under Act XXI of 1972. It is clear from the intention of the Legislature that these Acts are provided to benefit the cultivating tenants. To direct the tenant to file a separate application technically, will be going behind the spirit of the legislations intended to benefit the cultivating tenants. I am of the view that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the Authorised Officer converting the application filed under Section 3 (3) of the Act XXV of 1955 into one filed under Act XXI of 1972, even though it has not been so stated in such specific terms.
5. I consider that the Authorised Officer has ample power to treat the application filed by the respondent herein as one filed under Act XXI of 1972 and the relief granted can be easily taken as one under the provisions of Act XXI of 1972.
6. Mr. Ramanujam submits that the Authorised Officer, has not decided the exact rent payable by the tenant. It is clear from the petition filed by the respondent herein that according to the lease agreement, he is liable to pay 6f pothis of paddy. The tenant has also stated that even though the market value is less, he is calculating the rate of paddy at Rs. 80 per pothi and he is depositing Rs. 540 as per that calculation. The landlord, excepting stating that the amount deposited is not correct, has not given any figure as to the market value of paddy or pothi. The Court below found that the amount deposited is in accordance with the lease agreement. Hence, I am of the view that the finding that the correct lease amount has been deposited is in order.
7. In the circumstances, I do not find any miscarriage of justice or question of jurisdiction involved in this revision petition for me to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.