CRP.223 and 235 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.08.2022

RONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2022

C O R A M :

The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J. NISHA BANU

Civil Revision Petition Nos.223 and 235 of 2019

Parthasarathy

..Petitioner/tenant/respondent

in both CRPs

Vs

Ramesh @ Ilango

..Respondent/Landlord/Petitioner

in both CRPs.

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC

seeking to set aside the fair order dated 26.09.2018 passed in PTCPA

No.22 of 1990 on the file of Revenue Court, Puducherry Sub Division

(South) Villianur.

For Petitioner

in both CRPs : Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum

For respondent

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.223 and 235 of 2019

in both CRPs

: Mr.S.Ravee Kumar

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

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.223 and 235 of 2019

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

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.223 and 235 of 2019

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

4/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.223 and 235