@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rajasuria, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 02.08.2011, passed in P.N. No. 3 of 2010, by the Special Deputy Collector, Thanjavur. Heard both sides.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:
The respondent herein filed P.N. No. 3 of 2010 invoking Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his failure to pay the arrears of rent in respect of the agricultural land referred to therein. After hearing both sides, the Authority concerned, passed a conditional order to the effect that a sum of Rs. 1,02,590/-(Rupees One lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only) should be deposited into Court within a period of one month from the date of the order passed on 02.08.2011.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conditional order passed by the Authority concerned, the Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.
4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the observations of the Authority concerned and put forth and set forth his arguments to the effect that as per law, no enquiry was conducted, so as to ascertain the actual arrears; simply because the tenant could not appear on the particular date before him, the Authority went to the extent of assuming and presuming as though the version of the landlord was true and correct, and even without examining the landlord, the said conditional order was passed.
5. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respond/landlord would submit that due opportunity was given to the tenant to deposit the rent and in fact, the tenant did not make use of the opportunity in appearing before the Authority and explaining his position; the Statutory Authority cannot be expected to grant time ad nauseam and ad infinitum and if granted, it would be anathema to the very spirit of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The law is well settled on the point that if the tenant wants to utilise the benefit under the benevolent provisions of the Act, then he should in stricto sensu adhere to the procedures contemplated therein. Accordingly, he would point out that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the conditional order passed by the Authority concerned. Hence, he would pray for the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the conditional order passed by the Authority concerned?
The Point:
7. I would like to fumigate my mind by referring to Section 3 (4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
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 Divisional Officer and such application shall bear a Court-fee stamp of one rupee.
8. It is therefore clear from a mere running of the eye over on the said provision that the competent Authority under the Act is expected to apply his mind and find out as to what is the quantum of arrears of rent and for that, there should be an enquiry, irrespective of the fact whether the tenant appeared or not. In this case, not even the landlord was examined. However, the tenant earlier filed the counter affidavit disputing the factum of default. In such a case, without conducting even any enquiry, the Authority was not justified in coming to the conclusion that there was arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,02,590/-(Rupees One lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only). Hence, in my considered opinion such conditional order is having no legs to stand. Accordingly the conditional order passed by the Authority concerned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Authority concerned to conduct enquiry and give his findings objectively regarding the quantum of arrears and pass conditional order. The Authority is expected to complete such process within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. The point is answered accordingly.
9. While applying the equity justice and good conscience in passing the order, this Court also cannot loose the sight of the fact that the tenant obviously and axiomatically has not deposited even subsequent rents. As such by way of striking a balance between the two, I would like to mandate the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) before the lower Authority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as a condition precedent for enjoying the benefit of this order in the Civil Revision Petition. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
