Ganesa Reddiar & Anr. Vs. Muniappa Reddiar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1996.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4306 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4306 of 1994)
Petitioner: Ganesa Reddiar & Anr.
Respondent: Muniappa Reddiar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1996.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4306 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4306 of 1994)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, CJI., N.P. SINGH & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 19, 1996
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY LAW
Rental arears directed to be paid in instalments by Revenue Divisional Officer – Belated payment of instalments which were accepted – Eviction ordered solely on ground of non-payment of rent in accordance with time schedule – Held Revenue officer having accepted the payment and not passed eviction order must be deemed to have extended time for payment – Order of High Court set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer made an order computing the arrears of Rs. 6,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the sum in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500/- beginning from 20.1.90 and ending on 20.4.90. The tenant did not strictly adhere to the time schedule for payment of the arrears but did pay the arrears by paying Rs. 1,500/- on 24.1.90 late by 4 days, Rs 3,000/- on 30.8.90 and Rs. 1,500 on 4.10.90. The authorities, therefore, came to the conclusion that the cultivating tenant had failed to deposit the same ‘as directed’ and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Thus the eviction is solely on the ground of non-payment of the rent strictly in accordance with the time schedule worked out by the Revenue Officer.
3. It is, however, necessary to realise that there was nothing to preclude the Revenue Officer from extending the time and since he had accepted the payment and refused to pass an order of eviction he must be deemed to have done so. The High Court ought not to have interferred with that order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High court and restore the order of the Revenue’ Officer. There will be no order as to costs.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer made an order computing the arrears of Rs. 6,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the sum in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500/- beginning from 20.1.90 and ending on 20.4.90. The tenant did not strictly adhere to the time schedule for payment of the arrears but did pay the arrears by paying Rs. 1,500/- on 24.1.90 late by 4 days, Rs 3,000/- on 30.8.90 and Rs. 1,500 on 4.10.90. The authorities, therefore, came to the conclusion that the cultivating tenant had failed to deposit the same ‘as directed’ and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Thus the eviction is solely on the ground of non-payment of the rent strictly in accordance with the time schedule worked out by the Revenue Officer.
3. It is, however, necessary to realise that there was nothing to preclude the Revenue Officer from extending the time and since he had accepted the payment and refused to pass an order of eviction he must be deemed to have done so. The High Court ought not to have interferred with that order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High court and restore the order of the Revenue’ Officer. There will be no order as to costs.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
