1981 (12) TMI 168 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to pass a composite order.
2. Discretion of the RDO to grant and extend time for payment of arrears.
3. Compliance with statutory obligations under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.
4. Procedural requirements for eviction orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to Pass a Composite Order:
The central issue was whether the RDO erred in passing a composite order that determined the arrears of rent and simultaneously directed eviction upon failure to pay within a specified time. The judgment clarified that the RDO does not have the jurisdiction to pass such composite orders. The correct procedure, as per Section 3(4)(b) of the Act, involves first determining the arrears and granting time to the tenant to pay. Only upon failure to pay within the granted time and after further proceedings, can an eviction order be passed. The Court emphasized that the statute grants a locus poenitentiae (opportunity to repent) to the tenant, and the RDO must follow a two-stage process: first, fixing the arrears and granting time, and second, ordering eviction if the tenant fails to comply.

2. Discretion of the RDO to Grant and Extend Time for Payment of Arrears:
The judgment examined whether the RDO has discretion to grant and extend time for payment of arrears. It was concluded that the RDO is statutorily obligated to grant time to the tenant to pay the arrears, considering the relative circumstances of both the landlord and the tenant. This discretion must be exercised judicially, based on objective facts. The judgment highlighted that the RDO must evaluate circumstances such as the landlord's need for rent and the tenant's financial capacity. The RDO retains the jurisdiction to extend the time initially fixed, and passing a composite order that denies this jurisdiction is improper.

3. Compliance with Statutory Obligations under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955:
The Act aims to protect cultivating tenants from eviction and ensure security of tenure. The judgment stressed that the provisions of the Act should be construed to advance its objective. The RDO's role is judicial, and the proceedings must be conducted with due process, including granting time for payment of arrears and considering extensions if necessary. The judgment criticized the High Court for its contradictory stance and affirmed that the RDO must follow the statutory procedure without passing conditional eviction orders.

4. Procedural Requirements for Eviction Orders:
The Court outlined the procedural requirements for eviction under the Act. The RDO must first determine the arrears and grant time for payment. If the tenant fails to pay within the granted time, further proceedings must be conducted to consider any requests for extension before ordering eviction. The judgment emphasized that the RDO's order must be a speaking order, reflecting the inquiry into the relative circumstances of the landlord and tenant. The High Court's failure to adhere to this procedure was noted, and the Supreme Court set aside the eviction orders, recognizing that the tenants had complied with the High Court's conditional stay orders.

Separate Judgments:
Koshal, J.:
Koshal, J. concurred with the main judgment but added that the RDO cannot pass a conditional order of eviction to take effect on a future default. He emphasized that the RDO's orders were without jurisdiction and that the tenants had complied with the High Court's orders, making it unnecessary to remit the case back to the RDO. Koshal, J. disagreed with the view that it is obligatory for the RDO to grant time to the tenant in all cases, arguing that the RDO has discretion in this matter.

Misra, J.:
Misra, J. agreed with Koshal, J., affirming the decision to allow the appeals and set aside the eviction orders without remanding the cases to the RDO.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the eviction orders, and held that the tenants were entitled to protection under the Act. The judgment clarified the procedural requirements for eviction and the RDO's jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and adherence to statutory obligations.