ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955.

2. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The petitioners herein are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. According to the landlords, since the respondent was in arrears of rent for the fasli years 1405 to 1407, they filed T.C.T.P. 12 of 2000 seeking eviction of the respondent. The said petition was contested by the respondent on various grounds. Finally, an order came to be passed on 12.03.2012 directing the respondent to pay costs of 8 bags of paddy each weighing 65 Kilograms, at the rate fixed by the Government for the current fasli within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the landlord was given liberty to take execution proceedings to vacate the tenant.

3. There was another proceedings in T.C.T.P. No. 23 of 2007, which was filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the respondent for non-payment of rent for the fasli years 1414 to 1416. The same also came to be disposed of on 12.03.2012 with a direction to the tenant to pay the value of 24 bags of paddy, each weighing 65 kilograms at the rate fixed by the Government for the current fasli within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Similar liberty was given to the landlord to proceed with the execution, if the order is not complied with.

4. It is the common case of the parties that the copy of the order was received by the respondent/tenant on 03.05.2012. On the same date he has sent two demand drafts. One for Rs. 5,000/- and another for Rs. 15,000/- representing the cost of 8 bags and 24 bags of paddy. The landlords refused to receive the said demand drafts and they were returned. Hence, the tenant filed applications on 29.05.2012 seeking permission to deposit the said amounts before the Court, which were numbered as I.A. Nos. 45 and 47 of 2012.

5. Those applications were resisted by the landlords contending that the amounts of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- sent by the tenant did not represent the actual arrears. It was claimed that the value of 8 bags of paddy at Rs. 11.10/- per kilogram was Rs. 5,772/- and similarly the value of 24 bags of paddy at Rs. 11.10/- per kilogram was Rs. 17,360/-. Admittedly, the tenant had sent only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards compliance of respective orders. Therefore, there was a noncompliance with the order passed by the Revenue Court in T.C.T.P. Nos. 12 of 2000 and 23 of 2007. The Revenue Court however, allowed the applications and permitted the tenant to deposit such rent into Court. Consequentially execution petitions filed by the landlord in E.P. Nos. 13 and 14 of 2012 came to be dismissed. Aggrieved, the landlords have come up with these four revision petitions.

6. Heard Mr. M. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would invite my attention to the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and contend that the Revenue Court had no powers to accept the deposit by tenants more so when the entire arrears was not tendered in a proceeding under Section 3(4) of the said Act. Once the tenant fails to avail the opportunity granted by the Revenue Court, he cannot seek to get over the effect of non compliance by filing an application to deposit. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Kuppana Chettiar and another Vs. K. Ramachandran and Nangappa Chettiar and others Vs. K. Subba Rao [(1981) 1 MLJ 136].

8. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the tenant has not sent the rent payable as per the orders passed in T.C.T.P. Nos. 12 of 2000 and 23 of 2007. The short question that is to be decided is as