HARI KRISHNAN DIED Vs. HAJI FATHIMA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision petition is filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and under section 10 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act) by the respondent in O.P.No.28 of 1980 on the file of the Revenue Court, Karaikal. The revision petitioner herein died and so by the Order of this Court dated 27-9-1983 in C.M.P.No.11766 of 1983 the legal representatives of the petitioner had been brought on record. The respondent herein, Raji Fathima Beevi, filed before the Presiding Officer, Revenue Court, Karaikal O.P.No.28 of 1980 under section 3(A)(1) of the Act praying - to pass an order directing the petitioner herein to pay the respondent herein, the rental arrears claimed in the event of his failing to do so to pass an order directing eviction. On the point whether the revision petitioner herein is in arrears of 220 kalams of paddy for a period of four years effective from 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and whether he has defaulted payment of arrears of rental paddy, the lower court had held that the revision petitioner herein is in arrears of 220 kalams of paddy for the period of four years effective from 1976-77 to 1979-80, the value of which amounted to Rs.5,805-80 no receipt for payment of paddy in support of the claim of the revision petitioner herein was produced before the lower court. Further more, this court has confirmed 55 kalams of paddy as the rent per year as held by the lower Court in O.P.No.18 of 1976. Therefore, the lower court directed the revision petitioner herein to deposit the above either in cash or in kind into the lower court within two months from the date of the order viz. 7-10-1982 failing which the revision petitioner herein shall be evicted from the petition mentioned lands. It is further stated in the order under revision that the revision petitioner herein should report compliance of the terms of the order on or before 7-12-1982.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent herein P.W.1 Ganesan was examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-4 were filed. ON behalf of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner himself had gone into the box and examined himself as P.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the revision petitioner before the lower court.

(3.) THE Supreme Court has held in the above decision that the scheme of sub-section 4(b) of section 3 requires the Revenue Divisional Officer to determine arrears, ascertain the exact amount payable by the tenant, fix the time for payment after taking into consideration the relevant circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant and then stop there. THEre is no power in the Revenue Divisional Officer at that stage to pass an order for eviction.