Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act | Late Payment Of Rent Despite Direction Of Revenue Court Valid Ground For Eviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to follow the direction of the Revenue Court regarding payment of rent, is a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Madras High Court, who had upheld the eviction order passed by the Revenue Court. The Revenue Court had passed the said order on the ground that the cultivating tenants had failed to pay the lease arrears within 2 months of the Revenue Court’s direction.

Noting that the lease arrears were deposited by the tenants after over four months from the date of knowledge of the Revenue Court’s direction, the top court remarked that merely because the tenants had sent a Legal Notice, calling upon the respondent-landlords to come and collect the rent, it would not, ipso facto, discharge their onus in law to pay the lease arrears as per the direction of the Revenue Court.

The court remarked that the 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant, the Apex Court said while upholding the decision of the High Court and the Revenue Court.

The respondent-landlord, L. R. Eknath, filed a petition before the Revenue Court, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenants for not paying the lease rent.

The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, passed an order on 04.02.2019, directing the appellants to pay the lease rent to the landlords, within two months from the receipt of the said order, failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated against them. The lease amount was finally deposited by the appellants in the court on 18.02.2021.

On an application filed by the respondent-landlords, the Revenue Court passed an eviction order on the ground that the appellants did not deposit the lease rent amount within two months from the receipt of the order.

The appellant-tenants challenged the eviction order before the Madras High Court, who upheld the order of the Revenue Court. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court.

The appellants, including K. Chinnammal, submitted before the top court that they had received the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Revenue Court, only on 10.10.2020. Thereafter, they had sent a Legal Notice to the respondent-landlord, L. R. Eknath, on 06.11.2020, i.e., within two months from the date of receipt of the said order, expressing their readiness and willingness to pay the lease rent and asking the landlords to collect the lease rent.

Chinnammal argued that since the respondent-landlords failed to come and accept the lease rent arrears, the same was deposited in the Revenue Court on 18.02.2021. It was only thereafter, that the Revenue Court had ordered its eviction on the ground that the lease arrears were not paid within two months of the order dated 04.02.2019.

Chinnammal pleaded that Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 does not provide for eviction after the deposit of the due amount. Further, Section 3 of the 1955 Act also does not specify delay in deposit of rent as a ground for eviction. Thus, the Revenue Court ought not to have passed the eviction order.

The Supreme Court reckoned that the order passed by the Revenue Court on 04.02.2019, directing the appellant-tenants to pay the lease arrears, was never challenged by them and thus, it had attained finality. Further, even upon receiving a copy of the said order on 10.10.2020, compliance was not made within two months, as directed.

The court remarked that merely by sending a Legal Notice, calling upon the respondent-landlords to come and collect the rent, would not, ipso facto, discharge the appellants’ onus in law to pay. “The appellants could not have called upon the respondents via a Legal Notice to come and collect the rent as, simply stated, they were obliged in law, having not assailed the Order dated 04.02.2019, to pay and, if for any reason the respondent no.1, either due to non-availability or resistance/refusal to receive/accept the same, the Order dated 04.02.2019 had clearly provided that either 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent thereto could easily have been deposited before the Revenue Court; as ultimately is stated to have been done by the appellants, though belatedly, on 18.02.2021,” said the court.

The Apex Court observed that as per Section 3 of the 1955 Act, late payment of the rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction. Further, Section 4 of the Act provides for restoration of possession of the land to cultivating tenant, only in limited cases, that too when the default in paying the lease amount relates to only one year. Whereas in the present case, the court observed, the default was for three years.

Perusing the provisions of the 1955 Act, the court reckoned that the 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. “In order to grant such privilege, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord is circumscribed, by the Act. Hence, the court is required to ensure that even the said limited ground(s) for eviction by the landlord of the cultivating tenant, are not frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant,” said the court.

The bench referred to its decision in G Ponniah Thevar vs Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1 SCC 500, where the top court had noted that Section 3(2) of the 1955 Act deals with exceptional circumstances, such as default in payment of rent in which the statutory protection from eviction of the tenant has been lifted.

Referring to the facts of the case, the bench observed, “In the present factual set-up, the default is of at least three years, and the time given of two months was not per se inadequate. It is a matter of record that whatever payment was made/deposited, without going into whether it satisfied the Order dated 04.02.2019 or not, was made after over four months had elapsed, from the date of knowledge of the Order dated 04.02.2019, as admitted by the appellants.”

The court also dismissed the contention of the appellants that though the order dated 04.02.2019 was received by the Appellants on 10.10.2020, the payment was eventually made on 18.02.2021; however, since the said period fell during the COVID-19 pandemic, the delay was required to be condoned. The court held, “When the appellants themselves admit that they had given a Legal Notice on 06.11.2020 showing their readiness and willingness to pay the lease rent amount, then they cannot take plea that they were handicapped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The bench added: “Ergo, it is manifest that in the instant case, there was no such special handicap, effectuated by the pandemic, on the appellants in complying with the direction to pay 31½ bags of paddy or an amount equal thereto, which could have compelled us, if at all, to lean in favour of the appellants.”

The court thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment/orders of the High Court and the Revenue Court.

Case Title: K. Chinnammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs. L. R. Eknath & Anr.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Sandeep Rana, Adv. Ms. M. Venmani, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S. D. Dwarakanath, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ramu Vutukuri, Adv. Mr. Atul Bhojane, Adv.

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955: Section 3- The Supreme Court has ruled that late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant under Section 3 of the 1955 Act.

The court remarked that the 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant, the Apex Court said while upholding the decision of the High Court and the Revenue Court.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment