The court established that the Special Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to extend the time for rent deposit after an order of eviction had been made.

1. This is a revision petition under section 6-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, against the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Thiruchirappatli.

2. It is not in dispute, the petitioner-landlord filed an application under section 3 (4) (a) of the said Act and that the respondent-tenant admitted that he was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2208.75. The tenant was directed to deposit the said amount and produce the challan in Court on or before 26-1-1981. The tenant admittedly did not deposit the said amount within the time and an order of eviction was passed.

3. When proceedings to take possession were taken by the landlord and a notice was given to the tenant, the respondent offered to 13th March, 1982 pay the entire balance of rent. He was directed to deposit the amount in the State Bank of India which he did and be produced a challan on 16th March, 1982. On 17th March, 1982 the Special Deputy Collector made an order that the arrears of rent have been deposited and therefore, “full settlement was recorded” and the case was closed terminating the E.P. This order is challenged by the landlord.

4. The tenant-respondent has been served, but nobody has appeared on his behalf. He also absent. It is obvious that the order of the Special Deputy Collector is clearly without jurisdiction. Having ordered eviction on the failure of the tenant to deposit the requisite amount, the Special Deputy Collector had clearly become functus officio. There is no provision under which he has power to extend the time after an order of eviction has been made. That is also the view taken by this Court in Venkatarman v. Periaswami 1 decided on 26th February, 1986. The order treating the execution case as closed is thus clearly without jurisdiction. That order is set aside. The Special Deputy Collector shall now proceed to deliver possession of the land to the landlord-petitioner in accordance with the original order passed by him.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.