The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, particularly regarding the liability of tenants to pay rent and the grounds for eviction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of the Civil Produce Code, to set aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Madurai in TCTP Nos.28 of 2012, 15 of 2016 and 1 of 2013 dated 04.03.2019 and 25.02.2019 and allow these civil revision petitions.)Common Order:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Madurai in TCTP No.28 of 2012, dated 04.03.2019 and TCTP Nos.29 of 2012 and 1 of 2013 dated 25.02.2019.

2. All these civil revision petitions are pertaining to the cultivating rights of the petitioners/ tenants for the Survey Nos.108, 110 and 138/4 of Karupatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. Since the issue and the parties involved in all these civil revision petitions are one and the same, all these civil revision petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred to as tenants and the respondent is referred to as landlord.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner''s father one Sahul Hameed was a tenant of the lands in Survey Nos.108/4, 110/1, 138/4 from the year 1999 and Sahul Hameed''s name is recorded in the records of tenancy maintained by the Tahsildar, Vadiaptti in TRNo.4 of 1999, dated 12.01.2001. The petitioners'' father was regular in payment of lease paddy of 60 bags [30 + 30] to the the original landlady Rangammal without any default till the death of said Rangammal. The landlady Rangammal during her lifetime executed a settlement deed in favour of the respondent viz., R.Vijaya Venkatesan @ Arul Vijayan . When the petitioners'' father was ready to offer the lease paddy of 30 bags for the Fasali year 1413- 1419 to the respondent, who is the current landlord, he refused to receive the same and therefore, the petitioners'' father Sahul Hameed issued a legal notice on 18.06.2010 and also filed an application under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act r/w Rule 3 before the Special Deputy Collector, (Revenue Court), Madurai in TCTP No.36 of 2010. Pending the application, the respondent received the lease paddy for the fasali year 1412 – 1419. The application filed by Sahul Hameed had been dismissed on 21.10.2012. The petitioners'' father Sahul Hameed died on 03.05.2011. After the death of the petitioners'' father, the respondent has filed an application in TCTP No.28 of 2012 for eviction with an allegation that the petitioners'' father did not pay the lease paddy for more than 13 years. In fact, it is the respondent who refused to receive the lease paddy. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application in TCTP No.15 of 2016 for depositing of lease paddy for the Fasali years 1421 - 1422, 1422 - 1423 and 1423 – 1424 and they have also filed an application in TCTP No.1 of 2013 for depositing of the lease paddy for the Fasali years 1419 - 1420 and 1420 – 1421.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner''s father was already recorded as tenant and therefore the petitioners are cultivating the land by using their physical labour and therefore, they are entitled to be recorded as cultivating tenants as per the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. They have also filed necessary applications for mutation of entries in the records of tenancy. The petitions also rely on the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer that these petitioners are cultivating the lands. The petitioners'' father Sahul Hameed was already recorded as tenant in the tenancy register and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Sahul Hameed. The petitioners are entitled for mutation of entries in the tenancy records. The landlady refused to receive the lease paddy and therefore, the petitioners'' father Sahul Hameed already filed an application before the Revenue Court in TCTP No.36 of 2010, wherein the respondent had agreed to receive the amount of Rs.16,380/- and accordingly,