Non-compliance with an order for payment of money does not amount to contempt of court.

NATESAN, J. :- This appeal has been filed under Letters Patent from an order of committal of the respondent for contempt in a pending civil revision petition in this Court. The civil revision petition arises out of proceedings under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Act 25 of 1958) and has been preferred by the legal representatives of the landlord on the dismissal of a petition for eviction of the tenant, on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The contention in the civil revision petition appears to be that the Revenue Court erroneously went into the question of title and rejected the petition for eviction. The revision petitioners moved this Court in C. M. P. No. 5345 of 1965 for a direction to the respondent therein the appellant before us, to deposit into Court the arrears of rent to the credit of T. P. No. 2 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Ex-officio First Class Magistrate, Tirupattur, for the prior four years at the rate of Rs. 226.37 per year and future rent at tile rate of Rs. 250 per year pending the civil revision petition in this Court. In this civil miscellaneous petition on 28-1-1966, after hearing counsel on both sides, this Court passed an order in the following terms-

"The respondent will deposit the arrears of rent at Rs. 226-37 due up-to-date in the Rent Court within two months from this date and continue to deposit future rent at the same rate as and when it falls due."

The respondent, the present appellant (referred to hereafter as appellant) who failed to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the order, applied by C. M. P. 6057 of 1966 for extension of time to pay the arrears. But this C. M. P. was dismissed on 12-8-1966. Surprisingly though other remedies may be available to the petitioners to secure the arrears of rent claimed by them, they moved this Court in C. M. P. 4302 of 1967 for committal of the appellant for contempt of Court in that he disobeyed the order of this Court dated 28-1-1966 in C. M. P. 5345 of 1965. The appellant, in his counter affidavit to this application for committal, submitted inter alia that he was unable to pay the amount directed by this Court, as he was not in possession of the lands and that further he was very old and had a paralytic attack and was bedridden. The plea that he was not in possession of the lands, had been put forward even in C. M. P. No. 5345 of 1965 and had been overruled. When this application for committal came on for hearing on 24-10-1967, before the learned single Judge, who passed the original order for deposit, the learned Judge granted time for deposit in the following terms-

"Adjourned two weeks to enable the respondent to pay as directed by this Court."

On 13-11-1967, when the matter was taken up again, the counsel on record for the appellant reported no instructions. There was no appearance by the appellant and in his stead his son appeared. In the order passed on that date, the learned judge observed-

"On the facts stated above, it is clear that the respondent has not deposited, the amount as directed. He also admitted his liability and prayed for extension of time for depositing the amount. Till now, it does not appear that the respondent has deposited any amount as directed by this Court. The respondent is therefore, guilty of contempt of Court."

The appellant's son who appeared at the hearing on the 13th, represented to the Court that some amount had been deposited in the lower Court on 6-11-1967 and that he would arrange to make the deposit as per the orders of this Court. The attitude of the appellant as disclosed by the proceedings is one of surrender praying for time and pleading inability. On the representation made by the appellant's son on his behalf the order stated:

"The respondent's son S. A. Batcha represents that some amount had been deposited in the lower Court on 6-11-1967 and that he would arrange to make the deposit as per orders of this Court. If the amount is deposited as directed, i