Eviction for rent default invalid without prior direction to pay under S.3(4)(b); upheld for land disuse based on inspection report.

ORDER

The present Revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 made in O.P.No.26 of 1996 on the file of The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy camp at Coimbatore.

2. Heard Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ullasavelan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 9.

3. Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents predecessor in interest are the owners of the land which was taken on lease by the petitioner’s father and his brothers against whom the petition for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act was preferred. He would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, the original lessee namely his paternal uncle and his father who was cultivating the lands along with them had died. Similarly, some of the legal heirs of the deceased original owner had also died and an application was taken out to bring on record the legal heirs and on 20.01.2022, the same was ordered and without issuing any notice to them. The Authority had also passed an order of eviction holding that the grounds of eviction had been made out. He would submit that he had also attempted to file an application to reopen and recall the order so as to lead in evidence to substantiate his case which also failed. He would submit that when the rents are claimed not to be paid, it is for the Authority to determine the rents payable and give time to the tenant to pay the rent and only on such failure on part of the tenant to pay the rent, an order of eviction could be passed.

4. He would submit that the petitioner had been cultivating the land as the legal heir of his father who was the cultivating tenant under the predecessor in interest under the respondent. He would submit that originally the petitioner before the Authority was given a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to be adjusted towards the rent and that therefore, there is no arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord. He would further submit that there is no act of waste that has been committed by the cultivating tenant as he had been continuing to cultivate the land from the date of inception of lease and even after the death of the original lessee. He would submit that the Authority also erroneously relied upon a Report of the Revenue Inspector to come to a conclusion that there is no activity of cultivation carried on by the tenants and to support the petitioner contention he had also placed reliance upon the photographs filed along with the typed set. To support his contention that for cases of defaulted rents it is the duty of the authority to call for the tenant by ascertaining the defaulted rents and grant him time to pay rent and only on such failure to pay the rent, he could be evicted. He had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chinnamarkathian @ Muthu Gounder and another Vs Ayyavoo @ Periana Gounder and others reported in 1982 (1) SCC 159

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.Ullasavelan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 9 would submit that the allegations that on the very same day when the impleading petition of the deceased land owner was allowed, the OP was also disposed of without giving an opportunity to the petitioner is only a farce and an attempt to whittle down the proceedings that were concluded after following the due process of law. He would submit that the proceedings were initiated as early as in the year 1996 and for one reason or the other the tenants have been protracting the proceedings denying the respondents their entitlement to get the tenants evicted for not only the default payment of rent an