Madras High Court
M.Palandi vs T.Krishnamoorthy ... 1St on 14 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.397 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.2158 of 2021
M.Palandi ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1. T.Krishnamoorthy ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. Udhayakumr
3. Anandhi ... Respondents 2 and 3
(Respondents 2 and 3 are impleaded
as per the order of this Court dated
18.12.2024 made in C.M.P(MD) No.
15608 of 2024 in C.R.P(MD) No.
397 of 2021)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the order dated 18.01.2021 made in T.C.T.P.No.31 of 2015
on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, (Revenue Court) Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar
For R1 : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.Madhavan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
ORDER
The cultivating tenant has filed the revision petition challenging the
order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, (Revenue Court) Madurai,
dated 18.01.2021.
2. The first respondent herein is the original landlord. He had filed an
application before the Revenue Court, Madurai, seeking a direction as against
the tenant for payment of rent for three Fasli years, namely, 1419, 1420 and
1421. These Fasli years correspond to 2009 - 2011 of the calender years. This
application was filed on 11.08.2015. The tenant has filed a counter taking a
specific stand that the application has been filed beyond a period of 3 years
and therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation. However, the Special Deputy
Collector, (Revenue Court) Madurai has proceeded to allow the said
application and directed the tenant to pay 40 bags of paddy as rent for the
above said three Fasli years. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision
Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner, for the Fasli years between 2009 and 2011 the application for
arrears of rent has been filed on 11.08.2015. He relied upon the judgment of
this Court reported in 1989 (1) MLJ Page 78 (M.Palani Gounder
Vs.S.P.Thangavel Gounder), wherein it is held that the landlord would not be
entitled to seek rental arrears for the time barred period.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent herein had
contended that the previous orders passed by the same Revenue Court for the
other Fasli years have not been complied with by the tenant. Therefore, the
cause of action is continuous. In such circumstances, since the tenant has not
complied with, the present impugned order is barred by limitation.
5. Pending revision petition, the property was sold by the first
respondent in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 herein contended that the revision
petitioner is a Government servant and therefore, he is not eligible to register
himself as a cultivating tenant. Therefore, he is not entitled to any one of the
benefits under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Hence, he contended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
that the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner relying upon the
above said Act should be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. A perusal of the application filed by the first respondent/erstwhile
landlord seeking rental arrears reveals that the rental arrears for the Fasli
years between 1419 and 1421 correlating to the regular calender years
between 2009 and 2011 has been filed on 11.08.2015. Therefore, it is clear
that the application seeking rental arrears have been filed after a period of
three years.
8. In such circumstances, the order of the Revenue Court, Madurai to
issue a direction to the tenant to pay the rental arrears beyond a period is
barred by limitation is not legally sustainable. As far as the ground raised by
the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, they are at liberty to approach the
concerned authority for cancellation of the registration of the revision
petitioner as a cultivating tenant, if they are so advised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
9. With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
14.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Special Deputy Collector,
(Revenue Court) Madurai.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R..P.(NPD)(MD).No.397 of 2021
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.397 of 2021
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
