- (1.)THESE revisions are filed by the landlord under the following circumstances:
An application was filed by the tenant under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990. An extent of 1 acre and 40 cents land in Survey No.72/1 of Kulithalai Taluk, admittedly belong to the petitioner. According to the tenant, for faslis 1396, 1397 and 1398, rent at the rate of Rs.980 is payable and he is entitled to the benefit of Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act 1990. He further averred that the landlord has already filed a suit O.S.No.697 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai, against him and before the civil court he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,960 on 14.2.1990 towards rent arrears and for the remaining year, taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, he need deposit only Rs.245. According to him, on payment of Rs.1,225, he must be discharged from paying any further amount to the landlord, for which the application was filed.

(2.)LANDLORD filed his objections and opposing the claim of the tenant. Evidence was adduced before the Revenue Court by both the parties and by order dated 14.10.1992, the Revenue Court held that a sum of Rs.5,154.25 is payable by the tenant for the three faslis. It was further held by Revenue Court that since he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,225 along with the application, he has to further deposit a sum of Rs.3,929.25. He was directed to deposit the same within a period of 30 days. The Revenue Court also found that the claim of tenant that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,960 in the original suit filed by the landlord is not proved by any evidence and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Challenging the quantum payable, the landlord has filed C.R.P.No.174 of 1993.
Thereafter, the tenant filed a further application and revised order was passed on 18.11.1992 by the Rent Control Court which is challenging in C.R.P.No.1742 of 1993 by the landlord. By the revised order, the Revenue Court held that in his application dated 18.11.1992, the tenant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,970 in the State Bank of India, Kulithalai Branch and he also produced documents to show for having deposited Rs.1,960 in O.S.No.697 of 1989 as per I.A.No.117 of 1990. The Revenue Court also took into consideration deposit of Rs.1,225 made along with the application. Without notice to the landlord the application of the tenant filed on 18.11.1992 was allowed on the same day. The landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount, deposited in the State Bank of India. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.1742 of 1993.

Heard both sides.

The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 14.10.1992 should not have been re-considered or reviewed merely on the application dated 18.11.1992 and that too without notice to the landlord. It was further contended that when a civil suit is pending, the deposit will have to be made only before the court and not before Revenue Court and the declaration by the Revenue Court that the entire rent has been paid is therefore, one without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, the deposit alleged to have been made before Revenue Court is not a proper deposit and the same cannot discharge liability of the tenant.

After hearing both sides, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant portion of Sec.5 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 reads thus:

? Relief for payment of arrears of rent: (1) All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord for the said years and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act, shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefore, if such cultivating tenant pays to the landlord or deposits in the court or before the competent authority, to the account of the landlord in the manner specified in Sub-secs.(2) and (3), (a) the current rent; and (b) the one-fourth of the total amount of arrears of rent for the said years without interest (hereinafter referred to as the one-fourth of the arrears of rent). (2) Any cultivating tenant may pay to the landlord or deposit in the court or before the competent authority to the account of the landlord, the current rent and the one-fourth of the arrears of rent on or before the 31st day of March, 1991. (3) The court in which or the competent authority before which the deposit is made under Sub-sec.(2) shall cause notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and determine after a summary enquiry, whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of the current rent and the one-fourth of the arrears of rent due from the cultivating tenant. If the court or the competent authority finds that any further sum is due towards such current rent or one-fourth of the arrears of rent, it shall allow the cultivating tenant to deposit the further sum within the period specified in that sub-section or within such further time as the court or competent authority may allow which shall not in any case exceed thirty days from the 31st day of March, 1991 specified in the said sub-section. If the court of the competent authority adjudges that no further sum is due or if the cultivating tenant deposits within the time referred to above such further sum as is ordered by the court or the competent authority, the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to have paid the current rent and the one-fourth of the arrears of rent within the due date for the purposes of this Act. If having to deposit a further sum, the cultivating tenant fails to do so within the time allowed by the court or the competent authority, the landlord may proceed against such cultivating tenant under the Public Trusts Act or the Tenants Protection Act, as the case may be, for the current rent or one-fourth of the arrears of rent. (4) In any suit or proceedings pending on the date of the publication of this Act for the recovery of the current rent or any arrears of rent for any fasli year in the said years, payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord or for the eviction of a cultivating tenant for non-payment of any such current rent or any arrears of rent, the court or competent authority shall, if the cultivating tenant pays or deposits under this Act, the current tenant and the one-fourth of the arrears of rent, and on the application of the cultivating tenant, pass an order dismissing, without costs, the suit or proceeding in so as such suit or proceeding relates to such recovery or eviction.

(3.)THE scope of said provision came up for consideration before this Court in the decision reported in Ammasai Gounder v. K.Namagiri Ammasai Gounder v. K.Namagiri Ammasai Gounder v. K.Namagiri , (1992)2 L.W. 679 His Lordships Justice M.Srinivasan (as he then was) considered the scope of Sec.5 of the Act. It was held thus:
?Under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5 all arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord for the years referred to in Sec.4 and outstanding on the date of the publication of the Act, shall be deemed to be discharged whether or not a decree has been passed, if the tenant deposits in the court or before the competent authority, the current rent and one-fourth of the total amount of arrears of rent for the said years without interest. THE sub-section refers both to the court and the competent authority. It is quite obvious that deposits should be made in a court if a proceeding is pending in the court of a decree has been passed. In cases where proceedings for eviction are pending or orders of eviction have been passed the deposit has to be made before the competent authority. Sub-sec.(2) prescribes the time within which the deposit for payment should be made. Sub-secs.(3) and (4) prescribe the procedure to be followed after a deposit is made. Sub-sec.(5) refers to cases in which decree of orders have been passed in any suit or proceeding before the date of publication of the Act. THE present case falls under Sub-sec.(5) as the decree has been passed on 31.8.1990. That sub-section also speaks of both the court and the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the deposit could be made before the competent authority or the court and the choice is left to the tenant. With reference to the facts of this case he contends that no proceeding was actually pending on the date of publication of the Act in court as the decree had been passed earlier and the execution petition was filed later than the date of publication. According to him, the tenant, could have made the deposit only before the competent authority and not before the court. 9. I do not agree. When the section speaks of court or competent authority it does not leave the choice to the tenant. If a proceedings is pending in a court the deposit should be made only in the court. If a proceeding is before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who happens to be the competent authority under the Act, the deposit should be made only with the competent authority. It is not open to a tenant to make a deposit before the competent authority when the matter is before the court. In cases in which decrees have already been passed the tenant should make the deposit only in court. I have already referred to the definition of ?court? in Sec.3(b). It speaks not only of the court in which proceedings are pending but also of the court which has passed a decree and the court to which the decree has been sent for execution. Sec.3(b)(i) clearly contemplates a situation in which a decree has been passed earlier and execution proceeding has not been instituted. If the legislature had thought that a deposit should be made before the competent authority in all events, it would have made such a provision. But the legislature did not intend to do so. THE intention of the legislature is that in matters which had gone to court, the deposit must be made with the court so that the proceeding can be conveniently disposed of by the court. In matters which had gone before the Revenue Court competent authority, deposits should be made before the competent authority, who shall dispose of the proceedings according to law. Thus it is not open to the tenant to make a deposit before the competent authority on the ground that on the date of publication of the Act there was no proceeding actually pending before a court though a decree had been passed and an execution proceeding could be filed in that court.? [Italics supplied]

The said decision was followed in the decision reported in Mariyayee Ammal v. Vadamalai , (1994)2 MLJ. 462 in para.5 of the judgment, his Lordship followed the earlier decision and held that the deposit should be made in the court where the proceeds is pending. In view of the said decision, it has to be held that the very application filed by the tenant before Revenue Court was misconceived. If he is entitled to any relief, it could be entertained only by civil court, where admittedly, the landlord has filed O.S.No.697 of 1989. The tenant himself has said that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,960 on 14.2.1990 in civil court. The Revenue Court is not competent to receive deposit and the application before the Revenue Court is also not maintainable. The deposit cannot be treated as discharge under the Act.

In C.R.P.No.1742 of 1993, the earlier order dated 14.10.1992 is seem to be modified. In the earlier order dated 14.10.1992, the Revenue Court held that there is no evidence to show that the tenant has deposited the rent before civil court and therefore, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,930. On 18.11.1992, the tenant moved an application before Revenue Court for modification order and the same was allowed without notice to the landlord on the same day. The procedure adopted by the Revenue Court is not proper. But, that is not material once I hold that the very application under Sec.4 before Revenue Court is not maintainable. The finding by the Revenue Court as to the rent payable or in the fixation of quantum also will have to be set aside, once it is held that the application is not maintainable.