COMMON ORDER

Both landlord and tenant filed PCTPA.Nos.22 of 1990 and 04 of

1991 before the Revenue Court, Puducherry, in which, one filed by the landlord to evict the tenant from the schedule mentioned property and the other filed by the tenant seeking direction to deposit the rent arrears in the court.

2. Both the matters were heard and by common order, dated

26.09.2018, the learned Judge ordered as under:-

“(i) The respondent/tenant/petitioner is directed to pay rent by means of cash or kind equivalent to 27 bags (each bag containing 75 kg) of paddy per annum to the petitioner/landlord/respondent.

(ii) The respondent/tenant/petitioner is further directed to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1985 to till date at the rate of cash or kind equivalent to 27 bags (each bag containing 75 kg) of paddy per year after deducting Rs.30,000/- deposited by the tenant vide challan No.11/PCTPA/22 of 90/SDM/2000-2001 dated 02.03.2001 in the Revenue Court in the Head of Account 8443, Civil Deposit 104.

(iii) The petitioner/landlord/respondent is directed to withdraw the arrear rent amount deposited by the tenant vide challan No.11/PCTPS/22 of 90/SDM/2000-2001in the Revenue Court.

(iv) The petitioner is further directed to receive and give receipt to the tenant for the arrears of rent payable by the tenant for the period from 1985 to 2018. “

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant/Revision petitioner filed the above revision petitions.

4. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner/cultivating tenant is that the order of the Revenue Court fixing 27 bags of paddy per annum as rent is contrary to law. The Revenue court failed to see that the land is a punja land and cultivation of paddy depends mainly on the monsoon.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant also contended that in the plaint in O.S.No.322 of 1986, the tenant’s stand is lease amount agreed by Ramakrishnan, erstwhile landlord was also party to the suit as 4th defendant, as Rs.1,000/-. But the 4th defendant with the help and assistance of his brother viz., defendants 1 to 3, assisted in the cultivation. Therefore, the stand in the Revenue Court is that Rs.1,000/-

equivalent to 27 bags of paddy.

6. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there is a separate Act called The Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Fair Rent Act and a separate authority is earmarked for deciding the fair rent and the Revenue Court not given jurisdiction to decide such an issue.

7. It is reiterated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the agreed rent by the tenant is Rs.1,000/- per annum. The petitioner deposited Rs.30,000/- pursuant to interim order passed by this court in the earlier revision viz., CRP.Nos.3124 and 2498 of 2000 towards arrears of rent from 1991 to 2021.

8. Per contra, on the side of respondent/landlord, it is contended that as per the Puducherry Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1970, the Fair Rent is determined as per Section 5(1) or as per Explanation 2 to Section 5(1). It is determined as a proportion to the actual gross produce or average gross produce. It is never to be determined ab initio in terms of money value or cash but money value can be determined as a derivative of the quantum of crops determined on the basis of specified proportion of actual or average gross produce.

9. The market value of a given commodity do not remain static and the same varies from time to time. It varies both ways in the shorter duration and generally move upwards in the long run.

10. The respondent counsel further brought to the notice of this court that earlier this court by order dated 15.02.2002, directed the revenue court to dispose the matter and to fix the right quantum of lease amount by taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel submits that during cross examination before the Revenue Court, the petitioner/tenant declined to lead any evidence for determination of lease amount. The tenant did not help the court to adjudicate a