Muniappan Vs. Hazrathunnissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 3. according to the landlady, there was only a small tiled shed in the demised land by the side of the well. the tenant deepened the well and using the water, for agricultural purposes. the landlady stated that the tenant failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent for the period of two years from 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986. according to the tenant, he sent the rent by money order, which was refused by the landlady. by using the agricultural service connection the tenant drew water from the well for the purpose of his dyeing factory.orderthanikkachalam, j.1. the landlady filed a petition for eviction under section 3(4)(a)(b) of the tamil nadu cultivating tenants protection act, act 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein in respect of the land belonging to the respondent in survey no. 505/92. the tenant had taken the land on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of the present landlady for agricultural purpose, particularly, for cultivation of paddy. the present annual rent payable by the tenant to the landlady is rs. 2,5(x)and six salugais of paddy. according to the landlady, the rent is payable in every month of thai. on 4.2.1987 the tenant sent a draft for rs. 3,500 to the landlady along with a letter. in the letter it was slated that the rent of rs. 3,500 was sent to the landlady, but the landlady refused to receive the same and returned the draft along with her letter. in the said letter, she has slated that two years rent is due from the tenant for the period 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986 and since the tenant has sent only rs. 3,500 the same was returned back. it was, therefore, pleaded that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under section 3(2)(aa) of the act.2. the landlady further stated that the land was leased to the tenant for the purpose of cultivation, but the tenant used the land and continues to use it for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural coming within the meaning of section 3(2)(b) & (c) of the act.3. according to the landlady, there was only a small tiled shed in the demised land by the side of the well. last year, the tenant had constructed a tiled office room and several water tanks inside the original shed for the purpose of storing water and wetting the yarn, and also constructed a big tiled shed for the purpose of drying yarn and put up new oven in the original shed for dyeing and bleaching the yarn and has been running a yarn dyeing factory there under the name and style of 'vijaya kumar saya salai'. the tenant has also dismantled the new shed put up by him and used the space for drying the yarn. the tenant has done all these acts without the knowledge and consent of the landlady unauthorisedly and illegally. the tenant misused the agricultural electric service connection and continues to misuse the same for the purpose of running the aforesaid dyeing industry unauthorisedly. thus the tenant has unauthorisedly and illegally converted a portion of the demised agricultural land for industrial purposes, which was entirely alien to the agricultural tenancy. therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under section 3(4)(a) and (b) of the act.4. the tenant filed a counter. the case put forward by the tenant is as under:it is false to state that the annual rent is rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy. on the contrary, the annual rent is rs. 2,500 including six salugais of paddy. the tenant has not committed any default in payment of rent. when the rent was sent by draft, the landlady refused to receive the same. the tenant did not convert the agricultural land for any industrial purpose. the land was put into use only for agricultural purpose. the electric connection was obtained by the tenant with his own funds. the tenant deepened the well and using the water, for agricultural purposes. the tenant raised sugarcane crops in the demised land. the shed which has been built by the tenant is in existence for a long time. it is not correct to state that the shed has been built for drying the yarn. there is no such bleaching operation as alleged by the landlady. there is no dyeing factory under the name and style of 'vijayakumar saya salai' as alleged. therefore, the petition for eviction filed by the landlady is liable to be dismissed.5. the landlady examined three witnesses. the tenant examined himself as r.w.1. the tenant also examined one sundaram as r.w.2. the landlady filed 17 documents and the tenant filed 7 documents. ex.c-1 and ex.c-2 are the inspection report and plan filed by the assistant tahsildar.6. considering the facts arising in this case, the revenue court held that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and the tenant also put in use the agricultural land let out to him for the purpose other than for which it was let out. accordingly, eviction was ordered on both these grounds. it is against this order, the tenant is in revision before this court.7. the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner herein submitted as under:the revenue court was not correct in holding that the rent is rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy every year. the tenant is not in arrears of rent as alleged by the landlady. the revenue court overlooked the payments made by the tenant's counsel to the landlady's counsel of a sum of rs. 2,500 on 30-11-1987 and a sum of rs. 5,000 on 29-7-1988. the revenue court has committed an error of law in not granting time to the tenant as per section 3(4) (b) of the act so as to enable the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and as such the order is liable to be set aside.8. the tenant has not used the agricultural land for the purpose of dyeing yarn. p.w. 1 in his evidence stated that originally there was a tiled shed and later on it was extended for the manufacture of jaggery. further, the tenant put up an oven and a tank in the above said shed for the purpose of manufacture of jaggery. p.w. 1 admitted that for crushing the sugarcane and for the manufacturing of jaggery a shed is necessary and a room is also necessary for storing the jaggery. therefore, it is not correct to state that the tenant started a dyeing factory. no dyeing factory can be run without obtaining a licence. no licence was produced to show that the tenant was running a dyeing factory. there is no notice from the landlady objecting to the running of the dyeing factory. p.w. 1 had admitted the existence of thrashing floor. there is no evidence on record to show that the tenant committed acts of waste. even assuming if a dyeing factory had been running the shed put up in the thrashing field, that will not constitute an act of waste. in the tahsildar's report the exact extent of land used for dyeing factory is not mentioned. the penalty levied for the use of the agricultural service connection for non-agricultural purpose by itself would not be sufficient to establish that the petitioner was running a dyeing factory. the penalty was paid by the tenant to restore the pumpset connection to save the standing sugarcane crops. in ex.c-1 and c-2. the assistant tahsildar has not got the signature of the village administrative officer who was allegedly present at the time of inspection. no chemical waste were let out to the land. ex.p-11 to ex.p-17 relates to service connection sought for the land in survey no. 502/2 and not for 505/2. it was, therefore, pleaded that the revenue court was not correct in ordering eviction on both these grounds. the learned counsel for respondent while supporting the order passed by the revenue court reiterated the arguments advanced before the revenue court.9. i have heard the rival submissions. 10. the petitioner herein is the tenant that the landlady, who is respondent herein, in respect of agricultural land of an extent of 2,038 sq.ft. in survey no. 505/2. according to the landlady, the rent is rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy payable every year in the tamil calendar month of thai. the landlady stated that the tenant failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent for the period of two years from 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986. according to the tenant, he sent the rent by money order, which was refused by the landlady. according to the tenant he sent rs. 3,500 by way of draft along with a letter stating that this amount was sent towards the rent payable by him. since two years rent works out of rs. 5,000 and since the tenant sent only rs. 3,500, the landlady refused to receive the same. ex.b-5, dated 4.2.1987 is the demand draft sent by the tenant to the landlady for rs. 3,500. ex.b-4 is the letter sent by the tenant along with the demand draft. in the said letter there is no mention as to the amount sent by the tenant is relating to which year. the landlady refused to receive the same and sent back this demand draft along with the letter (ex.a-6). in spite of the fact that the landlady refused to receive the rent, the tenant did not make any attempts to deposit the same in court. before the revenue court the tenant stated that the rent is only rs. 2,000 and the value of six salugais of paddy would be rs. 500 and, therefore, the total rent is rs. 2,500. in the lease agreement dated 6.6.1985 the tenant agreed to pay rs. 2,500 as rent and six salugais of paddy every year. under such circumstances, the revenue court came to the conclusion that the tenant is in arrears of rent. accordingly, the revenue court ordered eviction. but this order is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the act. according to section 3(4)(b) of the act after ascertaining the arrears of rent, a duty is cast upon the revenue court to grant time to the tenant to deposit the rent. this was not done by the revenue court in this case. therefore, the order passed by the revenue court is hit by section 3(4)(b) of the act. this was the view taken by this court in the case of ayyammal v. m. venkataraman : (1982)2mlj432 . in view of the abovesaid legal position, the eviction order passed by the revenue court on the ground of arrears of rent is not in order. therefore, i set aside the order of eviction passed by the revenue court on this ground.11. the next ground in this revision relates to eviction sought for under section 3(2)(b) of the act. according to the landlady, the land was leased out to the tenant for the purpose of carrying out the agricultural operations. but according to the landlady the tenant was guilty of negligence in destructing the land, etc., and the land was used for non-agricultural purposes. the landlady submitted that the tenant started a yarn dyeing factory in the demised land under the name and style of 'vijayakumar saya salai' and recently the tenant had dismantled the new shed put up by him and used the space for drying the yarn. it was further pleaded that the tenant has done all these acts without the knowledge and consent of the landlady and therefore he is liable to be evicted for using the land for the purpose other than for which it was let out. on the other hand, the tenant submitted that he did not run any dyeing factory as alleged by the landlady. the shed was used for manufacturing jaggery. therefore, according to the tenant the landlady was not correct in saying that a portion of the land was converted for industrial purpose. the landlady filed a petition before the revenue court requesting the court to inspect the land personally. but that petition was dismissed. as against this order, c.r.p. no. 2256 of 1988 was filed before this court. the said revision was also dismissed on 26.8.1988. however, the land was inspected by the assistant tahsildar. after his inspection, the assistant tahsildar filed his report dated 30.8.1986. the inspection was made in the presence of the tenant and other persons. the assistant tahsildar, who conducted the inspection was also examined as c.w.1. in his report, the assistant tahsildar stated that in a portion of the demised land a dyeing factory was running under the name and style of 'vijayakumar saya salai'. he has also stated that caustic soda was kept in that place. the landlady made a complaint to the engineer, coimbatore municipality. the assistant engineer visited the spot. by using the agricultural service connection the tenant drew water from the well for the purpose of his dyeing factory. this was shown in ex.b-3 and ex.b-7. since the tenant used this service connection, which was meant for the agricultural purposes, in order to draw water for industrial purpose, a penalty of rs. 10,270.75 was levied by the electricity department against the tenant and the power was also disconnected. it is the contention of the landlady that the waste water after dyeing the yarn was used to be let out in the agricultural land, which is injurious to the agricultural soil. this was accepted by the revenue court. the tenant said the shed was used for the purpose of manufacturing jaggery. but no evidence was adduced to support this version. the tenant applied for service connection to the demised land in order to get electric current for commercial purposes. the tenant said that in the application he has given the survey number as 502/2 and, therefore, service connection was not applied for the demised land for which the survey no. is 505/2. admittedly, the tenant has no connection with the land in survey no. 502/2. further, he is also not the owner of any other hand. it was stated that in the demised land two water tanks were constructed by the tenant. the tenant has also constructed a big shed. in the centre of the shed there were two water tanks. there were two ovens inside the shed. by the side of these tanks, on a bench three bags of caustic soda were kept. on the front side of the door a board displaying 'vijayakumar saya salai' was hanging. these are all the facts found by the assistant tahsildar who inspected the demised land. the tenant did not produce any evidence to controvert to report filed by the assistant tahsildar. the landlady examined her husband, one mr. ramalingam, assistant engineer in the electricity department and one mr. kuppuraj, accountant who is also in the electricity department in order to prove her case. the assistant tahsildar, kovai was examined as c.w.1. considering the facts arising in this case, both oral and documentary, the revenue court came to the conclusion that the tenant used a portion of the agricultural land for the purpose of running his dyeing factory. therefore, eviction was ordered since the tenant was guilty of negligence in the destruction of the land etc. and for using the land for non-agricultural purposes as contemplated under section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the act.12. on a careful consideration of the facts arising on this aspect, i am of the opinion that the order passed by the revenue court on this aspect is in order since on facts, the landlady proved her case that the tenant conducted his dyeing factory in a portion of the demised land. since the order of eviction passed by the revenue court under section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the act is in order, i am not inclined to interfere with the same. therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the act. since the order of eviction passed by the revenue court on one of the grounds was upheld in this revision, i consider that the petition filed on the ground of arrears of rent need not be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with the decisions of this court cited supra.13. accordingly, this revision is dismissed. however, there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Thanikkachalam, J.

1. The landlady filed a petition for eviction under Section 3(4)(a)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, Act 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent herein in respect of the land belonging to the respondent in Survey No. 505/92. The tenant had taken the land on lease from the Predecessor-in-interest of the present landlady for agricultural purpose, particularly, for cultivation of paddy. The present annual rent payable by the tenant to the landlady is Rs. 2,5(X)and six salugais of paddy. According to the landlady, the rent is payable in every month of Thai. On 4.2.1987 the tenant sent a draft for Rs. 3,500 to the landlady along with a letter. In the letter it was slated that the rent of Rs. 3,500 was sent to the landlady, but the landlady refused to receive the same and returned the draft along with her letter. In the said letter, she has slated that two years rent is due from the tenant for the period 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986 and since the tenant has sent only Rs. 3,500 the same was returned back. It was, therefore, pleaded that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Section 3(2)(aa) of the Act.

2. The landlady further stated that the land was leased to the tenant for the purpose of cultivation, but the tenant used the land and continues to use it for a purpose which is neither agricultural nor horticultural coming within the meaning of Section 3(2)(b) & (c) of the Act.

3. According to the landlady, there was only a small tiled shed in the demised land by the side of the well. Last year, the tenant had constructed a tiled office room and several water tanks inside the original shed for the purpose of storing water and wetting the yarn, and also constructed a big tiled shed for the purpose of drying yarn and put up new oven in the original shed for dyeing and bleaching the yarn and has been running a yarn dyeing factory there under the name and style of 'Vijaya Kumar Saya Salai'. The tenant has also dismantled the new shed put up by him and used the space for drying the yarn. The tenant has done all these acts without the knowledge and consent of the landlady unauthorisedly and illegally. The tenant misused the agricultural electric service connection and continues to misuse the same for the purpose of running the aforesaid dyeing industry unauthorisedly. Thus the tenant has unauthorisedly and illegally converted a portion of the demised agricultural land for industrial purposes, which was entirely alien to the agricultural tenancy. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 3(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.

4. The tenant filed a counter. The case put forward by the tenant is as under:

It is false to state that the annual rent is Rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy. On the contrary, the annual rent is Rs. 2,500 including six salugais of paddy. The tenant has not committed any default in payment of rent. When the rent was sent by draft, the landlady refused to receive the same. The tenant did not convert the agricultural land for any industrial purpose. The land was put into use only for agricultural purpose. The electric connection was obtained by the tenant with his own funds. The tenant deepened the well and using the water, for agricultural purposes. The tenant raised sugarcane crops in the demised land. The shed which has been built by the tenant is in existence for a long time. It is not correct to state that the shed has been built for drying the yarn. There is no such bleaching operation as alleged by the landlady. There is no dyeing factory under the name and style of 'Vijayakumar Saya Salai' as alleged. Therefore, the petition for eviction filed by the landlady is liable to be dismissed.

5. The landlady examined three witnesses. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1. The tenant also examined one Sundaram as R.W.2. The landlady filed 17 documents and the tenant filed 7 documents. Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are the inspection report and plan filed by the Assistant Tahsildar.

6. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Revenue Court held that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and the tenant also put in use the agricultural land let out to him for the purpose other than for which it was let out. Accordingly, eviction was ordered on both these grounds. It is against this order, the tenant is in revision before this Court.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner herein submitted as under:

The Revenue Court was not correct in holding that the rent is Rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy every year. The tenant is not in arrears of rent as alleged by the landlady. The Revenue Court overlooked the payments made by the tenant's counsel to the landlady's counsel of a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 30-11-1987 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 29-7-1988. The revenue court has committed an error of law in not granting time to the tenant as per Section 3(4) (b) of the Act so as to enable the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and as such the order is liable to be set aside.

8. The tenant has not used the agricultural land for the purpose of dyeing yarn. P.W. 1 in his evidence stated that originally there was a tiled shed and later on it was extended for the manufacture of jaggery. Further, the tenant put up an oven and a tank in the above said shed for the purpose of manufacture of jaggery. P.W. 1 admitted that for crushing the sugarcane and for the manufacturing of jaggery a shed is necessary and a room is also necessary for storing the jaggery. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the tenant started a dyeing factory. No dyeing factory can be run without obtaining a licence. No licence was produced to show that the tenant was running a dyeing factory. There is no notice from the landlady objecting to the running of the dyeing factory. P.W. 1 had admitted the existence of thrashing floor. There is no evidence on record to show that the tenant committed acts of waste. Even assuming if a dyeing factory had been running the shed put up in the thrashing field, that will not constitute an act of waste. In the Tahsildar's report the exact extent of land used for dyeing factory is not mentioned. The penalty levied for the use of the agricultural service connection for non-agricultural purpose by itself would not be sufficient to establish that the petitioner was running a dyeing factory. The penalty was paid by the tenant to restore the pumpset connection to save the standing sugarcane crops. In Ex.C-1 and C-2. the Assistant Tahsildar has not got the signature of the village Administrative Officer who was allegedly present at the time of inspection. No chemical waste were let out to the land. Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-17 relates to service connection sought for the land in Survey No. 502/2 and not for 505/2. It was, therefore, pleaded that the revenue court was not correct in ordering eviction on both these grounds. The learned Counsel for respondent while supporting the order passed by the Revenue Court reiterated the arguments advanced before the revenue court.

9. I have heard the rival submissions.

10. The petitioner herein is the tenant that the landlady, who is respondent herein, in respect of agricultural land of an extent of 2,038 sq.ft. in Survey No. 505/2. According to the landlady, the rent is Rs. 2,500 and six salugais of paddy payable every year in the Tamil Calendar month of Thai. The landlady stated that the tenant failed and neglected to pay the arrears of rent for the period of two years from 14.4.1985 to 13.6.1986. According to the tenant, he sent the rent by Money Order, which was refused by the landlady. According to the tenant he sent Rs. 3,500 by way of draft along with a letter stating that this amount was sent towards the rent payable by him. Since two years rent works out of Rs. 5,000 and since the tenant sent only Rs. 3,500, the landlady refused to receive the same. Ex.B-5, dated 4.2.1987 is the demand draft sent by the tenant to the landlady for Rs. 3,500. Ex.B-4 is the letter sent by the tenant along with the demand draft. In the said letter there is no mention as to the amount sent by the tenant is relating to which year. The landlady refused to receive the same and sent back this demand draft along with the letter (Ex.A-6). In spite of the fact that the landlady refused to receive the rent, the tenant did not make any attempts to deposit the same in court. Before the Revenue Court the tenant stated that the rent is only Rs. 2,000 and the value of six salugais of paddy would be Rs. 500 and, therefore, the total rent is Rs. 2,500. In the lease agreement dated 6.6.1985 the tenant agreed to pay Rs. 2,500 as rent and six salugais of paddy every year. Under such circumstances, the Revenue Court came to the conclusion that the tenant is in arrears of rent. Accordingly, the Revenue Court ordered eviction. But this order is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. According to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act after ascertaining the arrears of rent, a duty is cast upon the Revenue court to grant time to the tenant to deposit the rent. This was not done by the Revenue Court in this case. Therefore, the order passed by the Revenue Court is hit by Section 3(4)(b) of the Act. This was the view taken by this Court in the case of Ayyammal v. M. Venkataraman : (1982)2MLJ432 . In view of the abovesaid legal position, the eviction order passed by the Revenue Court on the ground of arrears of rent is not in order. Therefore, I set aside the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court on this ground.

11. The next ground in this revision relates to eviction sought for under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. According to the landlady, the land was leased out to the tenant for the purpose of carrying out the agricultural operations. But according to the landlady the tenant was guilty of negligence in destructing the land, etc., and the land was used for non-agricultural purposes. The landlady submitted that the tenant started a yarn dyeing factory in the demised land under the name and style of 'Vijayakumar Saya Salai' and recently the tenant had dismantled the new shed put up by him and used the space for drying the yarn. It was further pleaded that the tenant has done all these acts without the knowledge and consent of the landlady and therefore he is liable to be evicted for using the land for the purpose other than for which it was let out. On the other hand, the tenant submitted that he did not run any dyeing factory as alleged by the landlady. The shed was used for manufacturing jaggery. Therefore, according to the tenant the landlady was not correct in saying that a portion of the land was converted for industrial purpose. The landlady filed a petition before the Revenue Court requesting the court to inspect the land personally. But that petition was dismissed. As against this order, C.R.P. No. 2256 of 1988 was filed before this Court. The said revision was also dismissed on 26.8.1988. However, the land was inspected by the Assistant Tahsildar. After his inspection, the Assistant Tahsildar filed his report dated 30.8.1986. The inspection was made in the presence of the tenant and other persons. The Assistant Tahsildar, who conducted the inspection was also examined as C.W.1. In his report, the Assistant Tahsildar stated that in a portion of the demised land a dyeing factory was running under the name and style of 'Vijayakumar Saya Salai'. He has also stated that caustic soda was kept in that place. The landlady made a complaint to the Engineer, Coimbatore Municipality. The Assistant Engineer visited the spot. By using the agricultural service connection the tenant drew water from the well for the purpose of his dyeing factory. This was shown in Ex.B-3 and Ex.B-7. Since the tenant used this service connection, which was meant for the agricultural purposes, in order to draw water for industrial purpose, a penalty of Rs. 10,270.75 was levied by the Electricity Department against the tenant and the power was also disconnected. It is the contention of the landlady that the waste water after dyeing the yarn was used to be let out in the agricultural land, which is injurious to the agricultural soil. This was accepted by the Revenue Court. The tenant said the shed was used for the purpose of manufacturing jaggery. But no evidence was adduced to support this version. The tenant applied for service connection to the demised land in order to get electric current for commercial purposes. The tenant said that in the application he has given the survey number as 502/2 and, therefore, service connection was not applied for the demised land for which the Survey No. is 505/2. Admittedly, the tenant has no connection with the land in Survey No. 502/2. Further, he is also not the owner of any other hand. It was stated that in the demised land two water tanks were constructed by the tenant. The tenant has also constructed a big shed. In the centre of the shed there were two water tanks. There were two ovens inside the shed. By the side of these tanks, on a bench three bags of caustic soda were kept. On the front side of the door a board displaying 'Vijayakumar Saya Salai' was hanging. These are all the facts found by the Assistant Tahsildar who inspected the demised land. The tenant did not produce any evidence to controvert to report filed by the Assistant Tahsildar. The landlady examined her husband, one Mr. Ramalingam, Assistant Engineer in the Electricity department and one Mr. Kuppuraj, Accountant who is also in the Electricity Department in order to prove her case. The Assistant Tahsildar, Kovai was examined as C.W.1. Considering the facts arising in this case, both oral and documentary, the Revenue Court came to the conclusion that the tenant used a portion of the agricultural land for the purpose of running his dyeing factory. Therefore, eviction was ordered since the tenant was guilty of negligence in the destruction of the land etc. and for using the land for non-agricultural purposes as contemplated under Section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the Act.

12. On a careful consideration of the facts arising on this aspect, I am of the opinion that the Order passed by the Revenue Court on this aspect is in order since on facts, the landlady proved her case that the tenant conducted his dyeing factory in a portion of the demised land. Since the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court under Section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the Act is in order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. Since the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court on one of the grounds was upheld in this revision, I consider that the petition filed on the ground of arrears of rent need not be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with the decisions of this Court cited supra.

13. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.