9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to grant time for rent deposit. 2. Judicial exercise of discretion by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. Interpretation of "availing" the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to Grant Time for Rent Deposit: The primary issue was whether the Revenue Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to grant time for the tenants to deposit arrears of rent under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The petitioner argued that the tenants had availed themselves of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3, and thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to grant additional time for the deposit. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that sub-section (3) allows tenants to deposit rent within a month after it falls due. The court found that the tenants' deposit was made beyond this period, rendering it invalid. Therefore, the tenants had not availed themselves of the provisions of sub-section (3) in a manner that would preclude the Revenue Divisional Officer from granting time under sub-section (4)(b). 2. Judicial Exercise of Discretion by the Revenue Divisional Officer: The petitioner contended that even if the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction, there was no judicial exercise of discretion in granting time for the tenants to deposit the arrears. The court reviewed the Revenue Court's order, which detailed the circumstances, including the landlord's demand for enhanced rent and the tenants' readiness to pay the lawful rent of Rs. 1200. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered these factors and concluded that the tenants should be given a concession to deposit the arrears instead of being evicted immediately. The court found that this constituted a conscious exercise of discretion, and there was no evidence of any patent violation of law or perversity in the order. 3. Interpretation of "Availing" the Provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 3: The court had to interpret the phrase "had not availed of the provisions contained in sub-section (3)" to determine if the tenants' late deposit fell within this scope. The court referred to various dictionary definitions and legal precedents to conclude that "avail" implies taking advantage or benefiting from a provision. The court held that a tenant can only be considered to have availed themselves of sub-section (3) if they have utilized it to their benefit within the prescribed time. Since the tenants' deposit was made beyond the permissible period, they did not benefit from sub-section (3), and thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer retained the jurisdiction to grant additional time under sub-section (4)(b). Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to grant time for the tenants to deposit arrears of rent and that there was a judicial exercise of discretion in doing so. The court's interpretation of "availing" the provisions of sub-section (3) clarified that only timely and beneficial use of the provision would preclude further time being granted under sub-section (4)(b).
|
