K R KUPPUSWAMI IYENGAR Vs. SAMIKKANNU PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. An application under section 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed by the petitioner, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent, on the ground that the respondent had not paid the fair rent fixed in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and also the rent of Rs. 500 in respect of an extent of 33 cents of coconut tope, for fasli 1382 (1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1973 ). In the course of the application, the petitioner had stated that fair rent had been fixed only in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents out of a total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents at Rs. 286 and that even that rent had not been paid in respect of the cultivable lands. As regards the coconut tope of an extent of 33 cents, the petitioner stated that the yield from the 51 coconut trees would be 3,000 coconuts out of which the petitioner's share would be 1,000 coconuts, but restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 500 towards this. In the application for eviction, the petitioner had also adverted to the proceedings initiated by him under section 4-A (2) of the Act for resumption of one-half of the extent under the cultivation of the respondent and his taking possession of 68'cents out of 1 acre and 37 cents, under the cultivation of the respondent, as per the order of the revenue Court, dated 5th September, 1973. THE application for eviction was filed by the petitioner towards the end of 1973, after the resumption of one-half of the extent of the lands under the cultivation of the respondent.

(2.) THIS application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the fair rent in respect of 1 acre and 4 cents out of 1 acre and 37 cents had not been finally fixed and that, therefore, the rent is payable only in accordance with the adjudication in O. S. No. 778 of 1969, District Munsif's court, Chidambaram, at the rate of Rs. 100 for the land of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and Rs. 100 for the 33 cents of coconut tope. There was no yield at all in fasli 1382 from the coconut tope, according to the respondent, and only a sum of Rs. 100 was payable towards rent. The claim for rent made by the petitioner for the land as well as the coconut tope was characterised as exaggerated. Ultimately, the respondent prayed that he may be granted two months'time to pay the entire rent of Rs. 200 for the total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the Revenue Court fell into a serious error in proceeding to fix the amount to be deposited by the respondent, on the basis of the fixation of fair rent in respect of 1 acre and 4 cents and in proportion to the extent of 68' cents held by the respondent. THE learned counsel for the respondent also frankly admitted that the mode of computation of the arrears by the Revenue court is erroneous. For the fasli in question, namely, 1382, the respondent was in possession of the entire extent of 1 acre and 37 cents, including 33 cents of cocoanut tope in respect of which no fair rent had been fixed. THE sum of rs. 286 fixed as fair rent is only for 1 acre and 4 cents and in respect of an extent of 33 cents of cocoanut tope it could only be on the basis of contract or reasonable rent. In this case, though the respondent denied having got any yield from the cocoanut trees, yet, there is absolutely no evidence whatever in support thereof. On the other hand, the evidence of the petitioner examined as p. W. 1 is to the effect that there are 51 cocoanut trees and that there would be formally five cuttings during the course of the year and that would yield about 800 cocoanuts every time. Out of 4,000 cocoanuts, the petitioner has claimed only 1,000 cocoanuts, the value of which has been estimated by him at Rs. 750. But even that had been rounded off to Rs. 500 in the application for eviction as well as in his evidence. THEre is absolutely no contra evidence. THE amount of Rs. 500 claimed by the petitioner is very reasonable. THErefore, for the fasli in question the respondent had not paid the petitioner the sum of Rs. 786, namely, Rs. 500 towards the cocoanut tope and Rs. 286 for the extent of 1 acre and 4 cents of land. From the records it is found that a sum of Rs. 188-50p. has been paid by the respondent pursuant to the order of the Revenue Court. Since the computation of the arrears, by the revenue Court has been held to be incorrect, the respondent would still be liable to pay Rs. 597-50p.