Order passed by Revenue Court held not tenable.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. An application under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed by the petitioner, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent, on the ground that the respondent had not paid the fair rent fixed in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and also the rent of Rs. 500 in respect of an extent of 33 cents of coconut tope, for fasli 1382 (1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1973). In the course of the application, the petitioner had stated that fair rent had been fixed only in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents out of a total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents at Rs. 286 and that even that rent had not been paid in respect of the cultivable lands. As regards the coconut tope of an extent of 33 cents, the petitioner stated that the yield from the 51 coconut trees would be 3,000 coconuts out of which the petitioner's share would be 1,000 coconuts, but restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 500 towards this. In the application for eviction, the petitioner had also adverted to the proceedings initiated by him, under Section 4-A(2) of the Act for resumption of one-half of the extent under the cultivation of the respondent and his taking possession of 68J/2 cents out of 1 acre and 37 cents, under the cultivation of the respondent, as per the order of the revenue Court, dated 5th September, 1973. The application for eviction was filed by the petitioner towards: the end of 1973, after the resumption of one-half of the extent of the lands under the cultivation of the respondent.

2. This application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the fair rent in respect of 1 acre and 4 cents out of 1 acre and 37 cents had not been finally fixed and that, therefore, the rent is payable only in accordance with the adjudication in O.S. No. 778 of 1969, District Munsif's Court, Chidambaram, at the rate of Rs. 100 for the land of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and Rs. 100 for the 33 cents of coconut tope. There was no yield at all in fasli 1382 from the coconut tope, according to the respondent, and only a sum of Rs. 100 was payable towards rent. The claim for rent made by the petitioner for the land as well as the coconut tope was characterised as exaggerated. Ultimately, the respondent prayed that he may be granted two months' time to pay the entire rent of Rs. 200 for the total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents.

3. Before the Revenue Court, Mayuram, the petitioner was examined-in-chief on 25th September, 1974 and the further examination was deferred. Thereafter, on 11th October 1974, the Revenue Court proceeded to pass: an order directing the respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 188-50 P. This was: on the footing that the remedy of the petitioner was before the civil Court to collect the arrear of rent in respect of one-half of the property already taken possession of by the petitioner and the respondent is liable to pay Rs. 188-50 P. being the proportionate fair rent for 68 cents, on the basis of the fixation of the fair rent for 1 acre and 4 cents at Rs. 286. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.

4. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the revenue Court was in error in holding that the remedy of the petitioner would be to collect the arrear of rent through a civil Court, especially when the respondent was a cultivating tenant in respect of the entire extent of 1 acre and 37 cents during the fasli in question, namely, fasli 1382 and had not paid the rent. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 14 of the1 Tamil Nadu Fixation of Fair Rent Act and also the decision in Palaniswami Gurukkal v. Kandappa Gounder . On the other hand, the learned counsel, for the respondent submitted that with reference to arrears for a previous fasli, the cultiv