Mr.Ravi v. Revision

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.03.2012CORAMThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHANC.R.P.(NPD)No.4104 of 2011andM.P.No.1 of 2011 Mr.Ravi ... Revision PetitionerVs.

Mr.Karunamurthy 2. Mrs. Malliga ... RespondentsCivil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the CivilProcedure Code, against the order passed by the Chairperson cumAssistant Commissioner (Revenue Court) Cuddalore, in C.T.P.No.18 of2010, dated 12.09.2010 signed on 12.09.2011, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955.For Revision Petitioner: Mr.A.PalaniappanFor Respondents: Mr.V.K.RajagopalanO R D E RThe respondent/tenant in C.T.P.No.18 of 2010, on the file of the Revenue Court, Cuddalore, is the revision petitioner herein.

The landlords, viz., respondents herein has filed the above petition, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner, who is admittedly, their cultivating tenant, on the ground that the revision petitioner has failed to pay arrears of rent, despite the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.63 of 2006.

While ordering eviction, the Presiding Officer of the RevenueCourt, Cuddalore, without following the provisions of Section 3 (4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ordered eviction, stating that the landlords expressed their willingness to have their personal cultivation and therefore, the revision petitioner has to be evicted and possession has to be handed over to the landlords. This order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.A.Palaniappan, the learned counsel appearing for there vision petitioner submitted that the order passed by the ChairmanCum Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court) Cuddalore, in C.T.P.No.18of 2010, is against the provisions of the Act, and the AssistantCommissioner, without following the provisions of Section 3 (4) (b)of the Act, ordered eviction, on the ground of owners' requirement, which is not permissible under the Act. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the revision petitioner/tenant is a chronic defaulter and he failed to pay the rent for a period of two years i.e., 2004-05and therefore, a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2006 was filed and in that suit, a decree was passed and the rent amount was recovered, but, for the subsequent years i.e., 2006 & 2007, the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rent and the respondents/landlordsgot the property under a Registered Will, dated 7.12.1983, executed by the original owner, viz., the father of the first respondent. Therefore, respondents/landlords require the property, for their own cultivation and they filed the application for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, as well as, on the ground of denial of title and considering the requirements of the respondents, an order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order does not call for any interference of this Court.

Heard both sides.

According to me, the order of the Chairman cum AssistantCommissioner (Revenue Court) Cuddalore, dated 12.09.2011, passed inC.T.P.No.18 of 2010, is liable to the set aside.

Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a tenant and even assuming that the respondents are the landlords, having got the property under a registered Will, they cannot seek for eviction, except, on the ground stated in Section 3 of the Act. As per Section3 (2) of the Act, eviction can be sought for, on the ground of default in the payment of rent, or act of negligence, which is destructive or injurious to the land, or crop or using the land for any purpose, other than the agricultural or horticultural purpose, oron the ground of wilful denial of title of the landlord.

In the present case, it is seen from the Petition filed inC.T.P.No.18 of 2010, that the Eviction Petition was filed on the ground of default in the payment of rents as well as on the ground of denial of title. It is further stated in the Eviction Petition that, in the suit filed in O.S.No.63 of 2006, the revision petitioner setup an agreement of sale and that amounts to denial of title and on that ground also, eviction was sought for by the respondents. Nevertheless, the Chairman Cum Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court)Cuddalore, without giving any findings regarding default in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ payment of rents or wilful denial of title, ordered eviction, on the ground of owners' occupation and the order of the Revenue Court in ordering eviction, on the ground of owners' occupation is not sustainable in law.

As stated supra, no eviction can be ordered against acultivating tenant, on the ground of owners' occupation and without appreciating the same, the Revenue Court has allowed the petition for eviction, on the ground of owners' occupation. Further, even in the case of default in payment of the rent, as per Section 3(4) (b) of the Act, the Court has to afford an opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent, giving a reasonable time and only in the event of default committed by the tenant, the Court can pass an order of eviction.

In this case, there is no findings, regarding the arrears of rent and the Court below has not quantified the arrears of rent payable by the revision petitioner/tenant. Further, no finding has been given by the Revenue Court, regarding the wilful denial of title and eviction was ordered, on the ground of owners' occupation, which is not sustainable in law.