Petition for restoration of possession was filed when Act was not in force.

The petitioner Madam is a public trust, represented by its power agent S.Sarangachariar. One Nagammal, mother of the second respondent herein was cultivating an extent of 2.34 acres in S.No. 459, Perugavazhndhan village, Mannargudi Taluk. As she was in arrears of rent, the petitioner Madam filed an application for eviction in P.T.No. 617 of 1987 under Sec.19(3) of Act 57 of 1961 and the said application was allowed and thereafter E.P.No. 19 of 1988 was filed for possession of the property and the said execution petition was ordered on 7.10.1988 pursuant to which the petitioner Madam took possession of the land on 21.12.1988. Thereafter, the said Nagammal filed an appeal seeking restoration of possession which was dismissed on 25.8.1989 by the Revenue Court, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Nagammal came forward with a C.R.P in C.R.P.No.2935 of 1990 on the file of this Court.

2. Whileso, the second respondent (Vedaratnam) claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of Nagammal (who died on 29.10.1989 according to the petitioner herein and on 1.9.1989 according to the second respondent herein), filed an application for restoration of possession. The said application was resisted by the petitioner Madam on various grounds. The Revenue Court entertained the application and ordered restoration of possession to the 2nd respondent herein. It is against this order of the Revenue Court, the petitioner Madam has preferred the above revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner Madam is that the order impugned in this revision had been passed under Act 41 of 1989, which according to the petitioner was not in force either on the date of application or on tile date of passing of the order. Further, the said Act 41 of 1989 does not provide for any appeal or revision. It is also the case of the petitioner Madam that after they took possession of the land through the Revenue Court, the said lands were leased out to one Mathiazhagan, who is in possession of the lands.

3. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner by Mr.V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the very application for restoration of possession filed under Sec.7 of Act 41 of 1989 is not maintainable especially when such application itself has been filed after 31.3.1990 after which date the very Act is not in force. It is further stated that Sec. 1, Sub-secs.(3) and (4) of Act 41 of 1989 in and by which the period during which the Act would be in force had been clearly demarcated as “ 1.10.1986 to 31.3.1990” thus rendering the invocation of any provision under the said Act after 31.3.1990 a negatory since according to the petitioner for invoking Sec.7 of Act41 of 1989, an application has to be made within three months after publication of the Act, viz., within three months from 29.11.1989. Which in the instant case, the application was filed beyond the said time-limit. Therefore, it is contended that the Revenue Court has erred in entertaining the application filed after the prescribed period especially without being satisfied as to whether sufficient cause has been made out for not preferring the application within the time stipulated under Sec.7(1) of Act 41 of 1989. Mr.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner further represented that the mother of the second respondent had sought for restoration of possession by filing P.T.No.617 of 1987 before the first respondent which application was dismissed on 25.8.1989 against which C.R.P.No.2935 of 1990 was pending on the file of this Court. It was later on dismissed as withdrawn by an order of this Court dated 24.1.1996. Therefore, it is contended that once the mother of the first respondent had exercised the right of restoration of possession and having failed therein, the second respondent cannot claim any right as he cannot derive better title than that of his mother. Even assuming that the 2nd respondent as a legal heir c