Delay in filing petition does not absolve tenant for his act of injury.

The landlord is the petitioner herein. The respondent is a cultivating tenant under the petitioner in respect of 2.00 acres of nanja lands in R.S.No.72 of Vannavodai Village, Tanjore District. The eviction petition was filed under Sec.3(2)(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act 25 of 1955). According to the landlord, the present tenant’s husband by name Singaram was cultivating the above land as cultivating tenant under the petitioner till his death. He had agreed to cultivate paddy crop in the abovesaid land and agreed to measure 48 ‘kalam’ of paddy per year. The lease was only oral. After the death of the said Singaram, his wife the respondent herein is cultivating the land as a lessee under the petitioner; on the same terms and conditions as admitted by her husband. The landlord submits that, contrary to the agreement, the respondent now dug up a pit in a portion of the abovesaid leasehold land and replaced the’ vandalmann, ‘from the land and manufacturing bricks in the ‘vandal mann’ and constructed a brick-kiln in the abovesaid land, without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner/ landlord. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the act of the respondent will amount to causing the destruction and injuries to the land. Digging a deep pit in the land is an act of causing injury to the land and it would not amount to doing any agricultural operation or for horticultural operation. Therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground that the respondent ceased to cultivate the land in question.

2. The respondent has filed counter stating that she never removed the fertile soil of the lands for the production of bricks without the consent and knowledge of the landlord/the petitioner herein. The respondent submits that the petitioner has authorised the respondent to level the land for easier irrigation as the land is in the tail-end of the irrigation channel. According to the respondent this petition was filed with an ulterior motive of evicting the respondent from the land in question.

3. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.I. One Dhanapal was examined as P.W.2.The respondent did not examine herself or anybody on her side as witnesses. Ex.C-1 dated 9. 1982 is a report filed by the Commissioner. The Revenue Court appointed a Commissioner to note the physical feature and the injuries that had been caused to the land in question by the respondent. The Commissioner has filed his report. On considering the facts arisen in this case, the Revenue Court has held that even though the injury was caused to the land, in Fasli 1392 and thereafter, the landlord agreed to receive the rent from the tenant which would go to show that the landlord has no objection for the tenant in converting the portion of the land for making bricks in a brickkiln and hence the tenant submitted that he is not liable to be evicted from the land in question. This revision is filed against the order of the Special Collector, Revenue Court, Tanjore dated 14. 1989, on the abovesaid grounds.

.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as under:

The Revenue Court has erred in concluding that the petitioner’s contention regarding injury to the land in 1982 and consequential eviction under Sec.3(2)(b) read with Sub-Rule 8(2) of the Act 25 of 1955 is no longer acceptable in 1989. Once an injury in 1982 is proved by oral evidence of the petitioner and the Special Revenue Inspector it is an injury to the land forever. At no point of time, the petitioner has condoned the injury to the land. The tenant was guilty of negligence in destroying and causing injury to the land by digging a deep pit in the land and using the sand for manufacturing bricks in a brick-kiln. This was also admitted by the tenant in his counter dated 13. 1983. The Revenue Inspector has submitted his detailed report with a topography of the land wherein the brick-kiln. was situate, along with the sketch p