9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taluk, to the Respondents herein under the registered lease deed dated 13-6-1957 for a period of 3 years on an annual cash rental of ₹ 1215. After the expiry of the period of the contract, the tenants have continued in possession. A sum of ₹ 100 is stated to be due as rent for the period of contract. The respondents-tenants failed to pay the rent for the subsequent period 1960-61 by the due date, that is, by 13-6-1961. Nor did they deposit the rent, as provided for under S. 3(3)(a) of the Act, within a month after it fell due. But the tenants deposited the rent in the revenue count on 26-9-1961 in P. No. 724 of 1961. This deposit, which was invalid, was opposed by the petitioner as not in accordance with law. In the application for making the deposit, the respondents stated that the father of the petitioner had issued notice claiming arrears of rent for the period 1960-61 that the petitioner himself had been demanding enhanced rent, and that, in these circumstances they had to take legal advice. The father of the petitioner was also made a party respondent to that application, though the deposit itself was made in the name of the petitioner. Following the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nants to pay the rent due, the Revenue Divisional Officer viewed in the circumstances that the tenants should be given the concession of depositing the amount due into the treasury and should not be evicted straightway. He ordered under S. 3(4)(b) of the Act that they should deposit the sum of ₹ 1300 on or before 16th April 1962. Failing such deposit, they were directed to be evicted. It is not disputed that the arrears have been deposited as directed. It is grant of time instead of ordering eviction straightway that impugned before me as devoid of jurisdiction and otherwise not a legal exercise of the discretion. For this reliance is placed on the provisions in S. 3(4)(b) of the Act, which gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to allow time to the tenant to pay off arrears only in a case in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contends that the jurisdiction(sic) and in a case where a tenant has availed himself of the provisions for deposit under sub-section (3) there could be no grant of time under sub-section (4)(b). The principal question for consideration is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the tenants should be considered to have av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and determine after a summary enquiry, whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of rent due from the cultivating tenant. If the court finds that any further sum is due, it shall allow the cultivating tenant such time as it mat consider just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing such further sum inclusive of such costs as the court may claim. If the court adjudged that no further sum is due, or if the cultivating tenant deposits within the time allowed such further sum as is ordered by the court, the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to gave paid the rent within the period specified in the last foregoing sub-section. If having to deposit a further sum, the cultivating tenant fails to do so within the time allowed by the court, the landlord may evict the cultivating tenant as provided in sub-section (4) For a proper deposit under this sub-section, the cultivating tenants in this case should have deposited the rent for 1960-61 on or before 13-7-1961. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (4) provides for the landlord making application to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Act for payment of rent. A period of one month after the rent falls due is permitted by the Act for payment, and if payment is made within that time, the embargo against eviction under sub-section (1) of S. 3 operates. The deposit to be made, has also to be made within the said period of one month. If the amount deposited is the correct amount, the tenant does not stand to gain any particular avoid dispute as to non-payment by the landlord. But it will be necessary for the tenant to make a deposit in a case where rent is payable in kind and the landlord does not co-operate in sharing the produce at the proper time and place. A tenant may also make deposit of rent if the landlord avoids receiving the rent or if there is a dispute as to the rent payable. While the court has to adjudge on the amount of deposit and this takes time and the court finding that further amount is payable grants time as it is bound to do under sub-section 3(b), the tenant does get advantage, by making the deposit under S. 3(b) as even though the balance of rent has been paid long after the due date, the entire rent shall be deemed to have been paid within the period specified in sub-section (2). A t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity'. A person can be stated to have availed himself of something only if he had taken advantage or profited by that thing or utilised it to his benefit. The Act, as already stated, is aimed at the protection from eviction of cultivating tenants. In construing the words in question, I think it is proper to bear in mind in this case the rule that the sense of the words is to be adopted which best harmonies with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the policy and object of legislation. Section 3(3)(a) and(b) provide certain benefits to a cultivating tenant in certain cases. Therein when the amount originally deposited is not proper, the court, while granting time, has to consider such time as it is just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and cultivating tenant. Under sub-section 4(b) the Revenue Divisional Officer who is empowered to allow time to cultivating tenant, also allows such time as he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant. As pointed out earlier, if the deposit is of the proper amount no question of application under sub-section (4)(b) arises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter came up before this court at the instance of the landlord in revision, the learned Judge Jagaisam J. observed: It is obvious that S. 3(4)(b) of the Act takes out a tenant who had availed himself of the provisions of S. 3(3) of the Act from the category of cultivating tenants in whose favour the Revenue Divisional Officer may exercise a discretion by granting time to make the payment. It is not necessary to probe into the mind of the legislature why the discretion to grant time conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer is confined only to tenants who had not availed themselves of the provisions enabling to make a deposit within a month after rent accrued due.........Perhaps the legislature thought it to be very in equitable that a cultivating tenant who gets the advantage of benefit of sub-section (3) of S. 3 of an enlarged time to make the deposit should again be a position to ask for further time in the eviction proceedings which might have cropped up as a result of his default in not having complied with the previous orders of the court.....In view of the proceedings in C.M.C. 34 of 1957 on the file of the Sub Collector, Pollachi, the tenant has obviously availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pendency of the petition purporting to be under sub-sec. (3)(a) he had not filed his application for eviction. I do not se how that can have any bearing in the matter. The application by the tenants being not one permitted by the Act, nothing prevented the landlord from proceeding with his own application for eviction under S. 3(4). Learned counsel for the landlord also drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chellammal Anni v. Masanan Samban, [1964]7SCR197 , and laid emphasis on the following observations in the judgment in that case: It is clear therefore that the direction allowed under clause (b) of S. 3(4) only comes into play where the tenant for some reason or the other has not made a deposit under Section 3(3). It is argued on this that only if there has been no deposit the discretion could be exercised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and once there has been deposit whether it is valid or not there could be no exercise of the discretion. In that case rent was payable in kind and the landlord had not co-operated in the division of crops. The tenant could have deposited the market value of the rent payable in kind in Court under S.3(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the landlord for eviction. This discretion which is vested in the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be taken away by the presentation of an application earlier which the Revenue Divisional Officer was not competent to entertain. The present landlord had opposed the maintainability of that application. He had not accepted and stood by it. I am therefore unable to accede to the view of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction in this case under S. 3(4) to allow time for depositing the arrears of rent. 8. The next question for consideration is whether there has been no legal exercise of discretion as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the order of the Revenue Court does not show a judicial exercise of discretion. I cannot agree. The Revenue Court has set out all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that in the circumstances a concession should be shown by giving them time for deposit, and that an order for eviction should not be made straightway. There is a conscious exercise of discretion in favour of the tenants. There is evidence that the landlord has demanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
