1. Eviction of cultivating tenant for failure to pay lease rent within the timeframe directed by the Revenue Court under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 505
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
K. Chinnammal (dead) Thr. Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
L.R. Eknath & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).3626 of 2023 [Arising From Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 20057 of 2022]
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Important Points
Late payment of lease rent is a valid ground for eviction under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
KEYWORD - Eviction Subject: Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 Section 3, Section 4 The court analyzed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Sections 3 and 4) in a case involving eviction of tenants for non-payment of lease rent. The court found that the tenants had failed to comply with the order to pay the rent within two months and upheld their eviction. The court rejected the argument that the delay in payment was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasized that late payment of rent is a valid ground for eviction under Section 3 of the Act. The court also noted that Section 4 of the Act only allows restoration of possession in limited cases and when there is a default of only one year's rent. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were tenants who had failed to pay lease rent for several years. The Revenue Court had ordered them to pay within two months, but they made the payment after four months. The respondents sought their eviction based on this delay.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had not complied with the order to pay rent within two months. It rejected their argument that they were handicapped by the COVID-19 pandemic, as they had sent a legal notice expressing their willingness to pay before the pandemic began. The court held that late payment of rent is a valid ground for eviction under Section 3 of the Act.Issues:
Whether late payment of lease rent is a valid ground for eviction under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955?Ratio Decidendi:
Late payment of lease rent is a valid ground for eviction under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The Act provides limited protection to cultivating tenants and allows eviction in cases of non-payment of rent within the specified time.Final Decision:
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of eviction passed by the Revenue Court. The appellants were ordered to vacate the land.Legal Category Hierarchy
- land law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Rana, Adv. Ms. M. Venmani, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. D. Dwarakanath, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ramu Vutukuri, Adv. Mr. Atul Bhojane, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Rana, Adv. Ms. M. Venmani, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. D. Dwarakanath, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ramu Vutukuri, Adv. Mr. Atul Bhojane, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Tenant claims readiness to pay and pandemic-related delay; landlord contends non-compliance with the court-ordered payment deadline and insufficient deposit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Notice to collect rent does not discharge payment obligations; COVID-19 limitation extensions apply to filing proceedings, not compliance with court orders; Article 227 is supervisory. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Non-payment of rent within the court-mandated period under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a valid ground for eviction. (Para 23 , 28 )
5. Appeal dismissed; eviction order and High Court judgment confirmed. (Para 34 , 35 )
6. Does sending a notice to the landlord to collect rent discharge the tenant's obligation to pay rent as directed by a court?
No. Sending a legal notice calling upon the landlord to collect rent does not discharge the legal onus to pay, especially when the court order provides an option to deposit the amount in court. (Para 21 )
7. Do the Supreme Court's Suo Motu orders extending limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic apply to the compliance of court orders?
No. The extensions relate to the limitation period for filing petitions, applications, suits, or appeals. They do not extend the time allowed for complying with or obeying existing judicial or court orders. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
8. Under what circumstances can a cultivating tenant be evicted under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955?
A cultivating tenant can be evicted if they fail to pay rent within the specified statutory period or fail to deposit arrears of rent within the time allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. (Para 22 , 23 )
9. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
It is correctional jurisdiction used sparingly to set right grave derelictions of duty or flagrant violations of law. It is not an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence or correct mere errors of fact. (Para 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) (MD) No. 271 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Revision Petition”), passed by a learned Single Bench of the Madras High Court Bench at Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”). The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants taking recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”).
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
4. The respondent No.1 had filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Court”), on 08.12.2014, against the appellants seeking their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424 (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) @ 10½ bags of paddy each weighing 65kgs.
5. On 04.02.2019 in I.A. No. 29 of 2015 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015, the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants. It would be relevant to note that the said Order was concerned with the lease rent(s) for Fasli(s) 1421, 1423 and 1424. Though legal notices between the parties were exchanged thereafter, but the lease amount is said to have been finally deposited by the appellants on 18.02.2021. A Memo dated 22.02.2021 was filed in the Revenue Court.
6. The respondent no.1 then filed I.A. No. 15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, seeking eviction of the appellants as they had failed to deliver the 31½ bags of paddy, or the amount equivalent, towards lease rent, which was allowed vide Order dated 03.12.2021, on the ground that the appellants did not deposit the lease rent amount within two months.
7. The appellants challenged the Order dated 03.12.2021 by way of Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 271 of 2022 at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the Impugned Judgement, confirming the Order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, in I.A. No. 15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015, thus giving rise to the present appeal. We deem it apposite to extract the short order hereunder in toto:
“To set aside the order the order passed by the Special Sub Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai in I.A.No.15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P.No.5 of 2015 dated 03.12.2021, the revision petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3. As per order dated 04.02.2019, in I.A. No.29 of 2015 in T.C.T.P.No.5 of 2015, the Revenue Court, Madurai has directed the revision petitioners to deposit the lease amount for three Faslis viz., 1421, 1423 and 1424, within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The revision petitioners had received the order copy on 10.10.2020. So, the revision petitioners have to pay the lease amount within trhee months from 10.10.2020, but they had deposited lease amopunt only on 18.02.2021, ie., beyond the time limit. The revision petitioners have stated that they have issued notice to the respondent, but they have not deposited the lease amount within three months from the date of receiving the order copy. Hence, on that basis the Revenue Court has rightly directed the revision petitioners to vacate the land. This Court finds no valid reason to allow this revision petition.
4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed and order passed by the Special Sub Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai in I.A. No.15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P.No.5 of 2015 dated 03.12.2021 is hereby confirmed
