The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant must provide a valid explanation for any delay in filing revision petitions, and must comply with the directions of the Revenue Court, failing which eviction orders may be upheld.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: CRP(MD).No.2016 of 2013: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2013 made in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in CRP.LT.SR.No.7 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and allow the civil revision petition.

CRP(MD).No.2017 of 2013: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2013 made in I.A.No.1 of 2013 in CRP.LT.SR.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and allow the civil revision petition.

CRP(MD).No.2018 of 2013: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2013 made in I.A.No.2 of 2013 in CRP.LT.SR.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and allow the civil revision petition.)

1. All the three revision petitions have been filed by the cultivating tenant challenging the orders of dismissal of condone delay application in filing a revision before the District Court, Trichy arising out of an order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court under Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961.

2. The respondent herein who is the landlord of Survey Nos.108, 109/5, 111 and 112 having an extent of 4 acres and 15 cents at Velli Thirumutham Village, Srirengam Taluk, Trichy District had filed P.No.262 of 1995, P.No.339 of 1995 and P.No.586 of 1992 as against the revision petitioner herein claiming rental arrears for the fasali years 1401, 1403 and 1404. Since the petitioner/tenant had not appeared before the Revenue Court despite receipt of notice, an order of eviction was passed in all these petitions on 19.03.2001 under separate orders.

3. In the said orders, the tenant was directed to deposit a particular amount as arrears and rent. The said conditional order was not complied with by the tenant and hence, the landlord/temple had filed E.P.Nos.25 of 1995, 184 of 2002 and 202 of 2002 before the said authority for evicting the tenant and to recover possession. Despite notice, the tenant had not appeared in the execution proceedings and hence, an order of eviction was passed in all the Execution Petitions on 19.08.2002 under separate orders.

4. According to the revision petitioner/tenant, the counsel engaged by him had left Trichy and the matter was not taken care of and this has resulted in passing of exparte orders. Though the tenant had made an application to the Revenue Court to provide copy of the affidavit, counter and order passed in all the three petitions, the Revenue Court had failed to furnish the said copies. Hence, the tenant had filed W.P(MD).No. 3864 of 2012 before this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Revenue Court to furnish the copy of documents applied for by the petitioner. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 28.03.2012 directing the Revenue Court to furnish the required documents within 3 days from the date of receipt of the application. Since the said order was not complied with, the tenant had filed Contempt Petition No.400 of 2012 to punish the authorities for wilful disobedience of the order. While the contempt petition was pending, the tenant had filed WP(MD).No.6931 of 2012 for a mandamus directing the landlord and the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department from in any way dealing with the lands in dispute until the Revenue Court furnishes the copies of the petitions.

5. In the said writ petition, the temple had filed a counter contending that for the past 25 years, the tenant has not paid any lease amount and they have already taken possession of the property in E.P.No. 184 of 2002. Recording the said submission, the writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the tenant to approach the appropriate authority for appropriate relief.

6. According to the tenant, he had received all the required do