The High Court's power to interfere with the order of the Authorised Officer under Section 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 is limited to the grounds specified in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

M. M. ISMAIL, C.J.:- These two civil revision petitions, whose facts are similar, have come up before us on a reference made by Natarajan, J., in view of the conflict between the decision of Gokulakrishnan, J. in Mahalinga Voikkaran v. Sellathammal, ((1972) 2 Mad LJ 17) and that of Mohan, J. in Sivasankara Devarayar v. Prakash (C.R.P.Nos. 991 and 992 of 1979 order dated 29th June, 1979). The petitioners in each of these cases are cultivating tenants against whom orders of eviction have been passed by the Authorised Officer consequent on their failure to deposit the arrears of rent as ordered to be paid by them within the stipulated time. C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1979 arises out of C.T.P. No. 44 of 1978 on the file of the Authorised Officer, Erode, while C.R.P. No. 2142 of 1979 arises out of C.T.P. No. 43 of 1978 on the file of the same Officer.

2. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1979, who is the landlord, filed the petition for eviction of the petitioners under Section 3 (4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioners filed a counter on 21-11-1978. On 19-6-1979 both the parties made a joint endorsement and the petitioners agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in full satisfaction of rent for the two years, on or before 7-8-1979 and that in default thereof eviction could be ordered. The Authorised Officer passed orders in terms of the joint endorsement on the next day, i.e., 20-6-1979, and directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000/- on or before 7-8-1979, and further held that failure to deposit the amount as directed would result in an order of eviction being passed. The direction was not complied with and hence the respondent-landlord filed a petition on 7-8-1979 for an order of eviction being passed in norms of the earlier order dated 20-6-1979. On 4-9-1979 the Authorised Officer passed an order of eviction, and it is against that order C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1979 was filed before this Court. The said revision petition was filed on 20-9-1979 and the petitioners sought an interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction in C.M.P. No. 9536 of 1979. This Court granted an order of interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction on condition that the petitioners deposited the sum of Rs. 9,000/- in the Court below within two weeks. This order was complied with and this resulted in the order of interim stay being made absolute till the disposal of the civil revision petition.

3. The facts in C.R.P. No. 2142 of 1979 are practically similar. In that case the landlord filed the petition for eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The petitioners filed a counter, but on 26-6-1979 a joint endorsement was made by both the parties, and the respondent agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 3,300/- in full quit of his claim for Rs. 4,000/-, and the petitioners agreed to pay the said sum. The joint endorsement did not, however, make any reference to the time within which the amount should be paid. On 29-6-1979 the Authorised Officer passed orders on the basis of the joint endorsement and directed the petitioners to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,300/- on or before 31-7-1979 and further stated that failure to deposit the amount would result in an order of eviction being passed. The petitioners not having deposited the amount as directed the respondent took out an application on 7-8-1979 for an order of eviction being passed and that application was allowed by the Authorised Officer on 4-9-1979. It was against this order that the petitioners filed C.R.P. No. 2142 of 1979 on the file of this Court. Along with the civil revision petition, they filed C.M.P. No. 9652 of 1979 and sought interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction. This Court granted interim s