The petitioner/temple is the owner of the land in which the respondents have been doing cultivation in the respective lands. Admittedly, the tenants have to pay the rent for a number of Fasilis. Taking advantage of the Act 38 of 1990, the respondents filed Applications before the Revenue Court to get benefits under the provisions of the said Act. According to the tenants, they are liable to pay the instalments as contemplated under the said Act only with respect to the rent due, which is not time barred. According to the landlord, while calculating the instalment amounts, the Revenue court should take into consideration, the entire arrears of rent, irrespective of the fact whether it is time-barred or not.

2. But the Revenue Court in all these cases quantified the arrears of rent, excluding the amounts payable by the tenants, which cannot be recovered, as they had been time-barred. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed the above revisions, against the orders of the Revenue Court, Thanjavur.

3. These civil revision petitioners raise an important question as to whether the Revenue Court is correct in directing the cultivating tenant to deposit the arrears of