Deposit of arrears of rent by tenant in Revenue Court.

The respondents in the civil revision petition are cultivating 1 acre 92 cents in S.F.No.24/ 2 of Nachikurichi village belonging to the revision petitioner. The latter instituted O.S.No.362 of 1988 in the Court of Sub Judge of Trichy for recovery for a sum of Rs.23,068 due to her by way of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the respondents filed I.A.No.1.33 of 1992 under Sec.5(2) or under Sec.7(2), of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1990 seeking to deposit the arrears of rent with prayer to dismiss the suit. The revision petitioner resisted that application contending that since the respondents have raised plantain crops without her prior consent, she has filed the suit for damages only.

There was no privity of contract between them for raising plantain crops. Simply because they have filed an application under Act 38 of 1990, before the Revenue Court, they cannot be absolved of their liability to pay the suit amount. The deposit before the Revenue Court was received only without prejudice to the suit claim by the plaintiff and so the suit cannot be dismissed for the reason set out in the application. Learned Sub Judge held that the suit was liable to be dismissed and allowed the application. This order is challenged in this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits at the out set that the suit in O.S.No.362 of 1988 was not one for recovery of arrears of rent or for eviction, but it was for the recovery of damages for use and occupation and there existed no relationship landlord and the tenant between them. A perusal of the averments in the plaint would indicate that the respondents are cultivating the suit land under the revision petitioner is not disputed. Her only grievance is that they have raised banana crops unauthorisedly and as such they are liable to pay damages. There is no substance in this argument since the respondents herein are statutory tenants. That they have started to raise plantain crops from 1986-87 docs not put an end to them relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. The next contention of learned counsel for the revision petition is that the respondents have not paid the arrears of rent as prescribed under Tamil Nadu, Act 38 of 1990, and they have failed to intimate their option for payment of arrears of rent in writing before the competent authority within the time prescribed under Scc.4(1) of Act 38 of 1990. Ex.P-1 is the receipt received by the revision petitioner on 23. 1991 acknowledging the payment of lease amount as calculated under Sec.5(1) of the Act. Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent Relief Act, 1990 reads that any cultivating tenant who is in arrears of rent payable to the landlord for the Fasli year ending with the 30th day of June, 1989 and for any previous Fasli year and outstanding on the date of the publication of this Act shall, within two months from the date of such publication intimate his option in writing to the competent authority to pay the current rent and the one-fourth of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part II or to pay the current rent and the one-third of the said arrears of rent in the manner specified in Part III of this Act for availing relief under this Act [ from the payment of the said arrears of rent.Under Sub-sec.(2), the option given under Sub-scc. (1) shall be final. This Act was published on 10. 1990 and the option should have been exercised on or before 12. 1990. But an amendment was passed in Act 15 of 1994, which was preceded by Ordinance 10 of 1990. In the Act, the time for exercising the option was extended by two months. Thus the tenants were given time till 2. 1991 for exercising their option. So according to the revision petitioner, the respondents should have exercised their option before 2. 1991. As since this has not been done, in time prescribed, the application is not maintainable. It does not appear from the affidavit filed in I.A.No.133 of 1992 that the ten