K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus L. R. EKNATH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 11-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.
v.
L. R. EKNATH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(S).3626 of 2023)
MAY 11, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – ss.3
and 4 – Eviction under – The respondent No.1 filed T.C.T.P. No. 5
of 2015 before the Revenue Court against the appellants seeking
their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli
1419 to Fasli 1424 (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) – On
04.02.2019 Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent
of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the
respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing
which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants
– Lease amount was finally deposited by the appellants on
18.02.2021 – Respondent no.1 then filed application before the
Revenue Court, seeking eviction of the appellants – Revenue Court
allowed the same vide order dated 03.12.2021, on the ground that
the appellants did not deposit the lease rent amount within two months
– High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants
challenging the order of Revenue Court – On appeal, held: The
substantive order dated 04.02.2019, passed by Revenue Court, was
never assailed by the appellants and thus had attained finality –
Further, the compliance of the order of revenue court was not made
within two months from the date of order – S. 3 and s.4 of the 1955
Act will not come to the rescue of the appellants because as per s.3,
late payment of the rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court is
clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction and likewise, s. 4
provides for restoration of possession only in limited cases and that
too when the default is of only one year of lease amount to be paid;
whereas in the present case, the default was for three Fasli years –
Appeal was without any merit.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court does not find any merit in the present
appeal. To begin with, the Order dated 04.02.2019, passed by
   [2023] 6 S.C.R. 831
831
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
the Revenue Court, was never assailed by the appellants herein.
Thus, the relationship of the tenant-landlord is not disputed.
Moreover, though the respondent no.1 had filed the case for
recovery of lease rent for Fasli(s) No. 1419 to 1424 @ 10½ bags
of paddy for each year, each bag weighing 65 kgs.; ultimately the
Order passed by the Revenue Court on 04.02.2019 was in the
form of a direction to the appellants to pay 31½  bags of paddy or
its equivalent amount to the respondents for Fasli(s) No. 1421,
1423 and 1424. As noted above, the substantive Order dated
04.02.2019, having never been assailed, has attained finality. Even
upon receiving copy of the Order dated 04.02.2019 on 10.10.2020,
compliance was not made within two months i.e., by 09.12.2020.
[Para 20][838-B-D]
2. Merely by the appellants sending a Legal Notice on
06.11.2020, calling upon the respondent no.1 to come and collect
the rent would not, ipso facto, discharge their onus, in law, to pay.
The appellants could not have called upon the respondents via a
Legal Notice to come and collect the rent as, simply stated, they
were obliged in law, having not assailed the Order dated
04.02.2019, to pay and, if for any reason the respondent no.1,
either due to non-availability or resistance/refusal to receive/
accept the same, the Order dated 04.02.2019 had clearly provided
that either 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent thereto
could easily have been deposited before the Revenue Court; as
ultimately is stated to have been done by the appellants, though
belatedly, on 18.02.2021. 22. [Para 21][838-D-F]
3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that
Sections 3 & 4 of the Act would come to their rescue is, in view
of this Court, erroneous, for the reason that as per Section 3 of
the Act, late payment of the rent as per the direction of the
Revenue Court is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction.
Likewise, Section 4 of the Act provides for restoration of
possession only in limited cases and that too when the default is
of only one year of lease amount to be paid; whereas in the present
case, the default was for three Fasli years. [Para 23][845-D-E]
S N Sundalaimuthu Chettiar v Palaniyandavan, AIR
1966 SC 469 : [1966] SCR 450 – held inapplicable.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
G Ponniah Thevar v Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1
SCC 500 

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