The court emphasized tenant protection under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, ruling that eviction requires substantial proof of abandonment and adherence to procedural safeguards before enforcing arrears payments.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The unsuccessful cultivating tenant is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in PCTPA No.1 of 2001 by the Revenue Court, Sub-Division (South), Villianur, Puducherry.

2.I have heard Ms.Gopika Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.R.Sundar, for Mr.C.Sakthimanikandan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.Ms.Gopika Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners in the revision, Satchithanandum and the 1st respondent, Krishnamurthy died pending PCTPA .No.1 of 2001. Inviting my attention to the application filed by the said Satchithanandum, the cultivating tenant in .No.7 of 1990, seeking permission to deposit the rent and the order passed in the said proceedings on 16.07.1990, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the payment of arrears of Rs.8,100/- was recorded and on 20.08.1999, a memo was filed, not pressing .No.7 of 1990, since the object of the said had been fulfilled with the payment of Rs.8,100/-.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that despite the tenant filing the memo, not pressing the PCTPA .No.7 of 1990, the Revenue Court, Puducherry, proceeded to pass an order, directing the tenant to deposit Rs.93,418/- towards arrears of rent, with a consequential direction, by way of default clause that if the said payment is not made, .No.7 of 1990 would be treated as dismissed. The Revenue Court also directed the parties to approach the authority concerned, for fixing the fair rent.

5.The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that till date there is no order of the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenant Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970, fixing fair rent for the subject property. However, taking advantage of the direction passed by the Revenue Court, directing deposit of Rs.93,418/-, the respondent/landlord filed E.P.No.1 of 2000, to execute the order dated 08.09.1999. The same was contested by the tenant, contenting that there was no executable order passed in PCTPA .No.7 of 1990 and ultimately, by order dated 27.06.2001, EP.No.1 of 2000 was dismissed by the Revenue Court.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the landlord has been trying to evict the cultivating tenant, by hook or crook and having failed in the attempt to mischievously execute an inexecutable order, the landlord attempted to disturb the cultivating tenants' possession which constrained them to file O.S.No.666 of 2001 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, on 10.10.2001. As a counter blast, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the landlord filed an an eviction petition in PCTPA No.1 of 2001, to evict the tenant on the ground that the tenant had not complied with the order dated 08.09.1999, directing deposit of Rs.93,418/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even in the said eviction petition, there was no prayer for eviction on the ground of abandonment of cultivation by the cultivating tenant. In the said eviction petition, the tenant filed a counter on 17.10.2002, stating that he was ready to deposit the entire arrears as on that date which was amounting to Rs.62,046/-.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also invite my attention to the payment of Rs.28,692/-, paid by the tenant and the factum of having filed a miscellaneous petition, seeking extension of time to pay the remaining arrears. She would further contend that the applicat