No default committed because the rent was paid.

The tenant is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlord, respondent herein, filed a petition under section 3 (4) (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, (XXV of 1955) before the Revenue Court, Thanjavur for eviction of the tenant from the petition-mentioned land, alleging that the tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due to him for fasli 1379. On 31st October, 1970, the Revenue Court passed a preliminary order directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent of Rs. 214.40 on or before 20th November, 1970; the same order mentioned that in the event of default an order of eviction would follow. The presiding officer of the Revenue Court who passed the said order, did not continue and there was vacancy in the post during the months of November and December, 1970. Later, when the post was filled up by a new officer, the case came on for hearing on 2nd March, 1971. On 2nd March, 1971, it is stated, the Counsel for the tenant and the Counsel for the landlord were present and on the landlord’s counsel making an endorsement to the effect that the tenant had not paid the arrears as directed, the Revenue Court ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

2. Thiru R.Ganesan, the learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that as per the interlocutory order passed in this revision petition, his client has paid the arrears due and as such this Court can excuse the delay in the payment of the arrears due to the landlord and thereby allow the revision petition. In Venkatachala Padayachi v. Rajammal1, Ramanujam, J. had allowed the revision on the ground that the petitioner-tenant therein paid the arrears while the revision petition was pending in the High Court. The learned Judge had observed in view of the payment of the entirety of his liability towards arrears of rent fixed by the Revenue Court, there cannot be any eviction of the petitioner from the leasehold lands “ in view of the provisions of section 3 of the said Act (Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act”.)

3. In Rama Iyer v. Sundaresa Ponnapoondar2, the Supreme Court has considered the powers of the High Court under section 115, Civil Procedure Code when it exercises revisional jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of section 6-B of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act(XXV of 1955). The Supreme Court, after discussing the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, came to the conclusion that the High Court has power to enquire into the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal as regards the finding as to whether a person is a ‘cultivating tenant’ or not. The Supreme Court further held that since the enquiry by the Tribunal to find out whether a person is a ‘cultivating tenant’ or not, is summary, and since there is no provision of appeal from its decision, the Legislature could not have intended that the decision of the Tribunal on this preliminary fact involving a a question of title would be final and not subject to the overriding powers of revision by the High Court

4. In Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthy Iyer3, Alagiriswami, J., has held:

“It is no doubt true that Revenue Courts under the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act are not civil Courts and they cannot normally have any inherent powers as such apart from those specifically conferred on them by the statute creating them. But even such Tribunals can be held to have certain powers by implication, even though not expressly conferred by the statute, where such powers are necessary for the proper and effectual performance of the work entrusted to them by the statute.

The Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act is a piece of beneficial legislation intended to protect cultivating tenants from eviction. A tenant who has been evicted from his holding in pursuance of an order of Court, which has been subsequently set aside, cannot be without a remedy to get back possession. Th