- (1.) THE respondent filed a petition in P. No. 650 of 1991 on the file of the Revenue Court, Thanjavur, under Section 4(3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, for eviction on the ground that the petitioner herein has defaulted in payment of rent and such default was wilful. THE petitioner filed a Counter objecting to the petition. In the said petition, it has been specifically stated that sale deed in favour of the respondent herein is not valid and it is a void document which will not clothe any title in favour of the respondent. THE Revenue Court in its order dated 30.10.1992, accepted the case of the respondent and ordered eviction under Section 3(2) (d) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners are tenants with respect to the lands mentioned in the petition. They were tenants under Shri Chinnannapuram Anna Chatram Estate Trust originally. The Managing Trustee sold the property in question in favour of the respondent under sale deed dated 21.12.1983. After purchasing the property, the respondent sent a notice under Ex. A4 dated 19.12.87 to the petitioners informing about the purchase of the property and to attorn the tenancy. Admittedly no reply was given by the petitioners to the said notice. But in the counter filed before the Revenue Court, the petitioners have come forward with a plea that the sale deed is not valid and it is void document. So, the Revenue Court found that such a denial is not a bona fide one. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that under Ex. B-6, notice, the present Managing Trustee has issued notice to the then Managing Trustee questioning the same. So, the tenants thought that there was a dispute between the parties and that is why they have denied the title of the respondent. Ex. B6 letter is only between the trustees. It is not the case of the petitioners that no notice was issued to the respondent questioning the same. Moreover under Ex. A4 a notice was issued by the respondent. The petitioners have not sent any reply denying the title of the respondent. Taking advantage of Ex. B6, it cannot be said that the denial in the counter is a bona fide one. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that no modification was made in the records maintained under the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act. In the absence of such a modification, the respondent cannot claim as a landlord so as to enable him to file the petition. In the absence of such modification and in view of the changed Adangal filed before the Revenue Court, the denial of the tenants should be construed as a bona fide mistake of fact. I am unable to countenance such an extreme contentions The Landlord has been defined under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, according to which, ?Landlord' in relation to a holding or part thereof means the person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part.? The definition does not mention anything about records being maintained under the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act. Merely because the entry maintained in the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act is not made, it cannot be said that the respondent is not a landlord for the purpose of invoking the provisions under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Moreover, that is not the reason mentioned, in the counter to deny the rights of the respondent. The Revenue Court has considered all the aspects and found that the denial of the petitioners is not bona fide but it is wilful. The said finding is based on evidence available on record. Hence, there is no merit in the Revision, and it is dismissed. It is represented that the tenant has deposited amount towards arrears of rent as directed by this Court. Since the petitioners are in possession of the property as tenants, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount. No costs. Consequently all the C.M.Ps are dismissed. ;