Revision challenging the order of eviction filed in High Court.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. An extent of 4 acres forming the western portion out of 6.25 acres of R.S. 43/1 in Ulaganeri village, Madurai North taluk, was taken on lease by him from the second respondent herein, who is admittedly the owner of that property, agreeing to pay rent at 32 bags of 54 Madras Measures (65 Kgs. each per acre per bogum) and 32 bundles of straw per fasli. In T.C.T.P. No. 202 of 1978 filed under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) hereinafter referred to as the Act) originally before the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Madurai, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the Revenue Court, Tirunelveli, and re-numbered as T.C.T.P. No. 21 of 1979, the second respondent herein prayed for the passing of an order or eviction against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner had not measured the rent as contracted and was in arrears of 28 bags of paddy and 96 bundles of straw in respect of faslis 1386 to 1388. That application was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds which need not be noticed in extenso for purposes of these proceedings. In the application for eviction, an ex-parte order of eviction, was passed initially, but on an application at the instance of the petitioner, ex-parte order of eviction was set aside and the petition was restored to file. Thereafter, the application for eviction had been adjourned to several dates and ultimately on 11th November, 1980, the petitioner and the second respondent made a joint endorsement signed by them as well as their counsel. Thereunder, the petitioner accepted that he was in arrears of 25 bags of 54 Madras Measures (65 kgs. each bag) and agreed to measure 25 bags or pay the market value thereof to the second respondent on or before 10th January, 1981, and obtain a receipt from him. It was further agreed that if the petitioner failed to do so, then he would vacate the land without asking for an extension of time, on the terms of the joint endorsement so made on 11th November, 1980, the Revenue Court fixed the value of the agreed rent at Rs. 1,885 at the rate of Rs. 116 per quintal and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,885 to the second respondent on or before 10th January, 1981 failing which the second respondent was given liberty to file an execution petition. In that order, it was also stated that no further time will be granted. This order was despatched by the Revenue Court to the petitioner as well as the second respondent on 20th December, 1980. It is not now in dispute that the petitioner received the order through his counsel (vide paragraph 2 of the affidavit in C.M.P. No. 11549 of 1981.). It is common ground that the petitioner did not measure 25 bags of paddy or pay the sum of Rs. 1,885 to the second respondent as agreed to by him. In as much as the petitioner did not do so, the second respondent took out an application in E.P. No. 15 of 1981, for delivery of possession of the lands under the cultivation of the petitioner and on 21st April, 1981, the possession of the property under the cultivation of the petitioner was delivered to the second respondent. While in C.R.P. No. 2962 of 1983, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Revenue Court on 11th November, 1980 on the basis of the joint endorsement, C.R.P. No. 1681 of 1981 questions the propriety of the delivery proceedings.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Revenue Court though based on a joint endorsement made by the petitioner and the second respondent is vitiated in as much as the Revenue Court has proceeded to pass a rolled up order in that the direction to pay the arrears and the direction to be evicted in the event of non-payment of the arrears have been given in the same order by the Revenue Court at the same time contrary to the provisions of the Act. Such an or