CHINNAMARKATHIAN ALIAS MUTHU GOUNDER CHINNA GOUNDER RAJA GOUNDER Vs. AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER:AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER:AYYAVOO ALIAS PERIANA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents in each of these appeals are the landlords of the land more particularly described in the three different petitions filed by them in the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal in Tamil Nadu State seeking to evict tenants of different parcels of land on the allegation that the concerned tenants were in arrears of rent for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. The tenants who are appellants in these three appeals appeared in the respective petitions and contested the same on diverse grounds but the only one now surviving at this stage is; whether in view of the language employed in Ss. 3, 4 (a) and (b) of the Madras (now Tamil Nadu) Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 ('Act' for short), the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in passing a composite order for payment of rent found to be in arrears within the time prescribed by him and on default, without any further proceedings directing eviction of the tenants.

(2.) The respondents purchased the cultivated by the tenants in each of the petitions under sale deeds Ext. P-6 dated January 22, 1960 and Ext. P-7 dated March 9, 1960, from the erstwhile owner of the land one Nachayammal. Subsequently by the deed of assignment Ext. P-5 dated 5th December, 1960, Nachayammal, the vendor of the respondents assigned the rent in arrears for the period 1958-59 and 1959-60 to the respondents. By the time, action in each case was commenced, according to the respondents landlords rent for the year 1960-61 had become due and payable. The respondents accordingly filed C.T.P.A. Nos, 1, 2 and 3 of 1961 against the respective tenants on January 2, 1961, for eviction of the tenants on the ground that they were in arrears of rent due and payable for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61.

(3.) The Revenue Divisional Officer overruled all the contentions of the appellants-tenants in each case and held that the tenants were in arrears of rent for the aforementioned three years and that they were liable to pay the same. It was further held that since by the deed of assignment, previous landlord assigned the arrears of rent for two years 1958-59 and 1959-60 in favour of the respondents, they were not only entitled to commence the action for recovery of arrears of rent due and payable to the previous landlord but they were also entitled to evict the tenants for failure to pay rent in arrears. Having recorded these findings the Revenue Divisional Officer passed identical order in each case with variation in figures. Only one order may be extracted to focus the attention on the controversy now brought to this Court. In C.T.P.A. No. 1/61 the following final order was made: