Revenue Court is not competent to receive deposit of rent

These revisions are filed by the landlord under the following circumstances:

An application was filed by the tenant under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990. An extent of 1 acre and 40 cents land in Survey No.72/1 of Kulithalai Taluk, admittedly belong to the petitioner. According to the tenant, for faslis 1396, 1397 and 1398, rent at the rate of Rs.980 is payable and he is entitled to the benefit of Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act 1990. He further averred that the landlord has already filed a suit O.S.No.697 of 1989 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Kulithalai, against him and before the civil court he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,960 on 12. 1990 towards rent arrears and for the remaining year, taking into consideration the provisions of the Act, he need deposit only Rs.245. According to him, on payment of Rs.1,225, he must be discharged from paying any further amount to the landlord, for which the application was filed.

2. Landlord filed his objections and opposing the claim of the tenant. Evidence was adduced before the Revenue Court by both the parties and by order dated 110. 1992, the Revenue Court held that a sum of Rs.5,154.25 is payable by the tenant for the three faslis. It was further held by Revenue Court that since he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,225 along with the application, he has to further deposit a sum of Rs.3,9225. He was directed to deposit the same within a period of 30 days. The Revenue Court also found that the claim of tenant that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,960 in the original suit filed by the landlord is not proved by any evidence and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Challenging the quantum payable, the landlord has filed C.R.P.No.174 of 1993.

3. Thereafter, the tenant filed a further application and revised order was passed on 111. 1992 by the Rent Control Court which is challenging in C.R.P.No.1742 of 1993 by the landlord. By the revised order, the Revenue Court held that in his application dated 111. 1992, the tenant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,970 in the State Bank of India, Kulithalai Branch and he also produced documents to show for having deposited Rs.1,960 in O.S.No.697 of 1989 as per I.A.No.117 of 1990. The Revenue Court also took into consideration deposit of Rs.1,225 made along with the application. Without notice to the landlord the application of the tenant filed on 111. 1992 was allowed on the same day. The landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount, deposited in the State Bank of India. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.1742 of 1993.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The main argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 110. 1992 should not have been re-considered or reviewed merely on the application dated 111. 1992 and that too without notice to the landlord. It was further contended that when a civil suit is pending, the deposit will have to be made only before the court and not before Revenue Court and the declaration by the Revenue Court that the entire rent has been paid is therefore, one without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, the deposit alleged to have been made before Revenue Court is not a proper deposit and the same cannot discharge liability of the tenant.

6. After hearing both sides, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant portion of Sec.5 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1990 reads thus:

“ Relief for payment of arrears of rent: (1) All arrears of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landlord for the said years and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act, shall be deemed to be discharged, whether or not a decree or order has been obtained therefore, if such cultivating tenant pays to the landlord or deposits in the court or before the competent authority, to the account of the landlord in the manner specified in