R. SUBBAIAH THEVAR Vs. R.V. MUTHURANGASWAMY NAICKER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been filed by the sub -tenant claiming the statutory rights under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). The first and second respondents, who are the landlords filed a petition in O.P. No. 651 of 1970 on the file of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Pollachi, under Section 3 (4) (a), read with Section 3 (2) (6) and (c) of the Act, praying for eviction from the holding.

(2.) UNDER a tenancy agreement dated 18th October, 1967 the landlords leased an extent of 12 acres and 56 cents in G.S. No. 536 of Pollachi Village, and an extent of 2 acres and 61 cents in G.S. No. 185 and 188 of Suleswarampatti Village, to the respondents 3 and 4, for a period of one year, on an annual rent of Rs. 5,000 in cash, one baram of coconuts, 2,000 coconut leaves and 3,000 pealed coconut skins. The tenants paid a portion of the rent for 1967 -68 and a sum of Rs. 500 was due and payable. The tenants also failed to pay the rents due for the years 1968 -69 and 1969 -70. The value of one baram of coconut and the 2,000 coconut leaves is mentioned as Rs. 500 and the value of pealed coconut skins as Rs. 150. On such valuation, the landlords contended that a sum of Rs. 11,800 was in arrears from the tenants. Since by the time the application for eviction was filed the tenants had sub -leased the properties to the petitioner herein, he had also been impleaded as a party to this petition for eviction. While this petition was pending, the landlords also filed O. S. No. 753 of 1970 on the file of the Sub -Court, Coimbatore, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 11,800 due towards arrears of rent. In this suit also, the tenants, and the sub -tenant were impleaded as party defendants. Pending this suit the sub -tenant filed O.S. No. 143 of 1971 in the same Court, for an injunction against the landlords restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment except according to law. The suit O. S. No. 753 of 1970 was ultimately decreed, but a finding was given that the petitioner herein was a sub -tenant. On this finding, the Subordinate Judge also granted the injunction prayed for by the subtenant in O. S. No. 143 of 1971. After the disposal of these suits, the subtenant filed O. P. No. 206 of 1973 and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 7th February, 1973 as rent due for fasli 1381, and contended that since he had deposited the rent for fasli 1381 no further arrears of rent for the earlier period was payable, and that the eviction petition filed by the landlord is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) C . R. P. No. 1187 of 1974, which has been filed against the order in O. P. No. 206 of 1973 can be easily disposed of at this stage. As already seen, the rent agreed to by the tenants under the tenancy agreement executed on 18th October, 1967 was not only a sum of Rs. 5,000 but also one baram of coconut, 2,000 coconut leaves and 3,000 coconut skins. The deposit made by the subtenant was only a sum of Rs. 5,000 and did not include the value of the baram of coconut, coconut leaves and coconut skins. Since the petitioner subtenant had not complied with the provisions of Act XXI of 1972, by depositing the entire amount due for the fasli 1381, even assuming that he was entitled to the statutory protection, the petition O. P. No. 206 of 1973 was rightly dismissed. It might be that even after the deposit of Rs. 5,000 on 7th February, 1973 the sub -tenant could have deposited a further sum of Rs. 650, the value of the baram of coconut, coconut leaves and coconut skins on or before 10th February, 1973, which was the last date prescribed under that Act by way of additional deposit but that has not been done. It is therefore not open to the petitioner to ask for a further time of 3 days at the time of hearing that application on any basis of mistake. The provisions of Act XXI of 1972 do not enable either the Authorised Officer or the Court to grant any further time for depositing the arrears of rent and therefore the petition was rightly dismissed. On this ground alone, C.R.P. No. 1187 of 1974 is liable to be dismissed.