CHINNAMARKATHIAN ALIAS MUTHU GOUNDER & ANOTHER versus AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 2 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 10-12-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
146 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
CHINNAMARKATHlAN AtIAS MVTiiU 
GOUNDER & ANOTHER 
v. 
AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER & OTHERS 
December lO, 1981 
[D.A. DESAI, A. D. KOSHAL AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.) 
Madras (Now Tamifnadu) Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955, S 3, 4(a} 
and (b)-Scope of-Cultivating Tenant-Rent in arrears-Eviction petition by 
landlord-Composite order by Revenue Divisional O/ficer-Allowing time for deposit 
of rent and on default directing eviction-Such order whether valid and legal. 
The appellants in the appeals were cultivating tenants in occupation of 
different parcels of lal)d which were owned by the respondents. The respondents 
purchased these lands from the erstwhile own€r, who also executed a deed of 
assignment assigning the rent in arrears of the tenants for the periods 1958-59 
and 1959-60. The respondents filed evic;tion petitions against the appellants for 
eviction on the ground that they were in arrears of rent due and payable for the 
years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, which were contested on diverse grounds. 
The Revenue Divisional Officer over-rnled all the contentions of the tenants 
and held that the tenants were in arrears of rent for the afore-mentioned three 
years and were liable to pay the same. He further held that since the previous 
landlord assigned the arrears of rent for the two years, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the 
respondents were not only entitled to commence action for recovery of arrears of 
rent due and payable to the previous landlord but they were also entitled to evict 
the tenants for failure to pay the rent in arrears. The tenants were directed to 
pay the arrears within six weeks, failing which they were to be evicted. 
In the Civil Revision Petitions by the tenants the High Court directed that 
the rent found in arrears be deposited, which order was complied with. The 
High Court found that the Revenue Divisional Officer was in error in passing a 
composite order, whereby he determined the amount of arrears a:nd after speci-
fying the time within which the amount of arrears should be paid up pre•cribed 
the consequences of failure namely that the tenants should be evicted; nevertheless 
held that the orders made by the Revenue Divisional Officer were not one for 
eviction and dismissed the revision petitions. 
In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that when the Revenue Divisional Officer grants time to the tenant to deposit 
the arrears of rent he cannot simultaneously pass an order of eviction which is 
to take effect infuturo and such an order can be passed only nfter the default in 
making the deposit is committed. On behalf of the respondents it was con-
tended that the Revenue Divisional Officer has a discretion to grant time to the 
-
-
r- • 
-
-
(:ifiNNA~ARKATHiAN V. AYYAVOO 
defaulting tenant to repair the d!lfau!!, ;;;:;iJ foerefore there would be nothing 
illegai in granting time and simultaneously providing for consequence of default. 
Allowing the appeals 
HELD : [By the Court] 
I. When the Revenue Divisional Officer allows time to a cultivating 
tenant for depositing the arrears of rent in pursuance of the provisions of 
clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, be cannot simultaneously 
pass a conditional order of eviction which is to take effect on a default to occur 
in futuro. 
An order to evict can, in terms of the section, only be passed 'if the 
cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as directed'. [160 E; 158 G-159 B] 
A 
B 
2. The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer directing eviction, were 
C 
passed in contravention of the express provision of clause (b) of sub-section (4) 
of Section 3 of the Act and are therefore, without jurisdiction. [160 F, CJ 
3. The order of the Revenue <Divisional Officer directing deposit of rent 
having been actually complied with about a couple of decades back it is no use 
remitting the case to him. The ends of justice would be served if it is declared 
that the tenants are qualified for the protection envisaged by the Act against 
their eviction. [160 G-H, A-BJ 
[per D.A. Desai J.J 
D 
I. Section 3 of the Act places an embargo on the eviction of a cultivating 
tenant and the protection extends to rendering a decree or order of a court for 
eviction nugatory. An enabling provision in sub-section (4)(a) of Section 3 
E 
enables the landlord to seek eviction of a cultivating tenant on grounds available 
to him under the Act. [ 154 BJ 
2. When an application for ev

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.