K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusL. R. EKNATH & ANR.

                          [2023] 6 S.C.R. 831                            831


             K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                              A
                                  v.
                      L. R. EKNATH & ANR.
                 (Civil Appeal No(S).3626 of 2023)
                            MAY 11, 2023                                 B
                    [KRISHNA MURARI AND
               AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
       Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – ss.3
and 4 – Eviction under – The respondent No.1 filed T.C.T.P. No. 5
of 2015 before the Revenue Court against the appellants seeking          C
their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli
1419 to Fasli 1424 (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) – On
04.02.2019 Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent
of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the
respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing
which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants     D
– Lease amount was finally deposited by the appellants on
18.02.2021 – Respondent no.1 then filed application before the
Revenue Court, seeking eviction of the appellants – Revenue Court
allowed the same vide order dated 03.12.2021, on the ground that
the appellants did not deposit the lease rent amount within two months   E
– High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants
challenging the order of Revenue Court – On appeal, held: The
substantive order dated 04.02.2019, passed by Revenue Court, was
never assailed by the appellants and thus had attained finality –
Further, the compliance of the order of revenue court was not made
within two months from the date of order – S. 3 and s.4 of the 1955      F
Act will not come to the rescue of the appellants because as per s.3,
late payment of the rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court is
clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction and likewise, s. 4
provides for restoration of possession only in limited cases and that
too when the default is of only one year of lease amount to be paid;     G
whereas in the present case, the default was for three Fasli years –
Appeal was without any merit.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. This Court does not find any merit in the present
appeal. To begin with, the Order dated 04.02.2019, passed by             H
                            831
832            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     the Revenue Court, was never assailed by the appellants herein.
      Thus, the relationship of the tenant-landlord is not disputed.
      Moreover, though the respondent no.1 had filed the case for
      recovery of lease rent for Fasli(s) No. 1419 to 1424 @ 10½ bags
      of paddy for each year, each bag weighing 65 kgs.; ultimately the
      Order passed by the Revenue Court on 04.02.2019 was in the
B
      form of a direction to the appellants to pay 31½ bags of paddy or
      its equivalent amount to the respondents for Fasli(s) No. 1421,
      1423 and 1424. As noted above, the substantive Order dated
      04.02.2019, having never been assailed, has attained finality. Even
      upon receiving copy of the Order dated 04.02.2019 on 10.10.2020,
C     compliance was not made within two months i.e., by 09.12.2020.
      [Para 20][838-B-D]
            2. Merely by the appellants sending a Legal Notice on
      06.11.2020, calling upon the respondent no.1 to come and collect
      the rent would not, ipso facto, discharge their onus, in law, to pay.
D     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/
E     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. 22. [Para 21][838-D-F]

F           3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that
      Sections 3 & 4 of the Act would come to their rescue is, in view
      of this Court, erroneous, for the reason that as per Section 3 of
      the Act, late payment of the rent as per the direction of the
      Revenue Court is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction.
      Likewise, Section 4 of the Act provides for restoration of
G     possession only in limited cases and that too when the default is
      of only one year of lease amount to be paid; whereas in the present
      case, the default was for three Fasli years. [Para 23][845-D-E]
            S N Sundalaimuthu Chettiar v Palaniyandavan, AIR
            1966 SC 469 : [1966] SCR 450 – held inapplicable.
H
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                        833


      G Ponniah Thevar v Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1                A
      SCC 500 : [1977] 2 SCR 446 – distinguished.
      Estralla Rubber v Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC
      97 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 68; Garment Craft v Prakash
      Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 – relied on.
      Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re, (2022)               B
      2 SCC 117; S Kasi v State, (2021) 12 SCC 1 – referred
      to.
                       Case Law Reference
[1966] SCR 450                  held inapplicable        Para 24          C
[1977] 2 SCR 446                distinguished            Para 25
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 68          relied on                Para 31
(2022) 4 SCC 181                relied on.               Para 31
(2022) 2 SCC 117                referred to              Para 26          D
(2021) 12 SCC 1                 referred to              Para 27
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3626
of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2022 of the High Court      E
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRP (NPD) (MD) No.271 of
2022.
      S. Gowthaman, Sandeep Rana, Ms. M. Venmani, Advs. for the
Appellants.
     S. D. Dwarakanath, Chand Qureshi, Rama Kant Sharma, Sukesh           F
Ghosh, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
      Heard learned counsel for the parties.                              G
      2. Leave granted.
      3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and
Order dated 25.04.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned
Judgment”) in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) (MD) No. 271 of 2022
(hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Revision Petition”), passed by a   H
834             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     learned Single Bench of the Madras High Court Bench at Madurai
      (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”). The High Court dismissed
      the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants taking recourse to Article
      227 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the
      “Constitution”).
B            THE FACTUAL PRISM:
            4. The respondent No.1 had filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before
      the Revenue Court, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue
      Court”), on 08.12.2014, against the appellants seeking their eviction on
      account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424
C     (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) @ 10½ bags of paddy each
      weighing 65kgs.
             5. On 04.02.2019 in I.A. No. 29 of 2015 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015,
      the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to
      pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the
D     respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing
      which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants. It
      would be relevant to note that the said Order was concerned with the
      lease rent(s) for Fasli(s) 1421, 1423 and 1424. Though legal notices
      between the parties were exchanged thereafter, but the lease amount is
E     said to have been finally deposited by the appellants on 18.02.2021. A
      Memo dated 22.02.2021 was filed in the Revenue Court.
             6. The respondent no.1 then filed I.A. No. 15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P.
      No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, seeking eviction of the appellants
      as they had failed to deliver the 31½ bags of paddy, or the amount
F     equivalent, towards lease rent, which was allowed vide Order dated
      03.12.2021, on the ground that the appellants did not deposit the lease
      rent amount within two months.
             7. The appellants challenged the Order dated 03.12.2021 by way
      of Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 271 of 2022 at the Madurai Bench
G     of the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the Impugned
      Judgement, confirming the Order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Special
      Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, in I.A. No. 15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P. No.
      5 of 2015, thus giving rise to the present appeal. We deem it apposite to
      extract the short order hereunder in toto:
H
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                           835
            [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

             “To set aside the order the order passed by the Special         A
      Sub Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai in I.A.No.15 of 2021
      in T.C.T.P.No.5 of 2015 dated 03.12.2021, the revision
      petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition before this
      Court.
           2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides             B
      and perused the materials available on record.
             3. As per order dated 04.02.2019, in I.A. No.29 of 2015
      in T.C.T.P.No.5 of 2015, the Revenue Court, Madurai has
      directed the revision petitioners to deposit the lease amount
      for three Faslis viz., 1421, 1423 and 1424, within two months,         C
      from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The revision
      petitioners had received the order copy on 10.10.2020. So,
      the revision petitioners have to pay the lease amount within
      trhee months from 10.10.2020, but they had deposited lease
      amopunt only on 18.02.2021, ie., beyond the time limit. The            D
      revision petitioners have stated that they have issued notice
      to the respondent, but they have not deposited the lease amount
      within three months from the date of receiving the order copy.
      Hence, on that basis the Revenue Court has rightly directed
      the revision petitioners to vacate the land. This Court finds no
      valid reason to allow this revision petition.                          E

            4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands
      dismissed and order passed by the Special Sub Collector,
      Revenue Court, Madurai in I.A. No.15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P.No.5
      of 2015 dated 03.12.2021 is hereby confirmed. No costs.
      Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”             F

      SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
      8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they had
received the Order dated 04.02.2019 only on 10.10.2020 and had sent
Legal Notice to the respondent No.1 on 06.11.2020 i.e., well within two      G
months from the date of receipt of the Order dated 04.02.2019, (a)
expressing their readiness and willingness to pay the lease rent of 31½
bags of paddy, and (b) asking them to come with all the legal heirs of the
original lessor and collect the lease rent.
                                                                             H
836             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A            9. It was further submitted that on 11.11.2020, the respondent no.1
      replied that the appellants should come with all the five legal heirs of the
      cultivating tenants together and deliver the lease rent arrears of 31½
      bags of paddy to him, who would accept it after obtaining consent from
      the heirs of the original lessor. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter
      Replication Notice dated 07.12.2020 was issued by appellant no.1.
B
             10. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents having
      failed to come and accept the lease rent arrears, the same was deposited
      in court on 18.02.2021 for Rs.28,563/- in the State Bank of India Treasury
      of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, and a Memo dated
C     22.02.2021 was filed by the appellants, with the receipt of such deposit
      before the said Revenue Court.
             11. It was submitted that only thereafter the respondents filed I.A.
      No. 15 of 2021 in T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, for
      eviction of the appellants on the ground that the lease rent of 31½ bags
D     of paddy were not paid within the two months, as directed by Order
      dated 04.02.2019.
            12. Learned counsel submitted that even after the appellants filed
      a Reply to I.A. No. 15 of 2015 explaining the entire position and denying
      any delay in paying the lease rent amount, the Special Deputy Collector,
E     Revenue Court, by Order dated 03.12.2021 in I.A. No. 15 of 2012 in
      T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015, directed that the appellants be evicted from the
      concerned land.
             13. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court vide the
      Impugned Judgment dated 25.04.2022 had wrongly rejected the Civil
F     Revision Petition and confirmed the Order dated 03.12.2021 passed by
      the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court. It was submitted that
      Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955
      (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) does not provide for eviction after
      the deposit of the due amount(s) and in the present case, the delay, not
      being inordinate, such order(s) ought not to have been passed. It was the
G
      further contention of the learned counsel that Section 3 of the Act also
      does not specify delay in deposit of rent as a ground for eviction.
             14. It was next urged that the Order dated 04.02.2019 was received
      by the Appellants only on 10.10.2020 and payment was eventually made
H
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                              837
            [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

on 18.02.2021, the said period falling during the COVID-19 pandemic,            A
the delay was required to be condoned.
       15. Learned counsel submitted that Section 4 of the Act also
provides for restoration of possession of the land on payment of any
arrears of rent.
                                                                                B
      SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
       16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted
that even as per the contention of the appellants themselves, the copy of
the Order dated 04.02.2019 was received by them on 10.10.2020 and
thus, they had to comply with the same latest by 09.12.2020 i.e., within 2      C
months, which, admittedly, had not been done. Further, it was submitted
that the appellants, only to delay, had sent a frivolous Legal Notice stating
that all the legal heirs of the original lessor should come together and
receive rent and issue receipt, which was appropriately responded to by
the respondent no.1 on 21.12.2020, highlighting that no steps were taken
by the appellants to pay the lease amount.                                      D

       17. It was submitted that even on 18.02.2021, only an amount of
Rs.28,563/- was deposited instead of the total accrued amount of
Rs.37,820/- and till date the remaining amount had not been deposited. It
was submitted that the appellants suppressed the factum that the
                                                                                E
respondent No.1 had, after the passing of the Impugned Judgment,
instituted Execution Proceedings No. 1 of 2022 and E.A. No. 5 of 2022
for police protection and delivery, which was finally effected on
13.10.2022.
      ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:                                       F
       18. Though this Court had verbally permitted filing written
submissions, however, the appellants filed written submissions totalling
16-pages (including extracts from the Act), that too without forwarding a
copy thereof to the respondents. Further, belatedly, the appellants also
filed a list of judgments, again without serving the other side.                G
      19. Thus, this Court, ordinarily, would have rejected even considering
the same, but nonetheless, in the interest of justice, has surveyed both
the written submissions and the judgments submitted, more so for the
reason that in view of the order eventually being passed by us, no prejudice
                                                                                H
838            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     is going to be caused to the other side due to such non-supply. We shall
      refer to the judgments relied on by the appellants at the appropriate place
      infra.
             20. Having considered the matter, this Court does not find any
      merit in the present appeal. To begin with, the Order dated 04.02.2019,
B     passed by the Revenue Court, was never assailed by the appellants herein.
      Thus, the relationship of the tenant-landlord is not disputed. Moreover,
      though the respondent no.1 had filed the case for recovery of lease rent
      for Fasli(s) No. 1419 to 1424 @ 10½ bags of paddy for each year, each
      bag weighing 65 kgs.; ultimately the Order passed by the Revenue Court
C     on 04.02.2019 was in the form of a direction to the appellants to pay 31½
      bags of paddy or its equivalent amount to the respondents for Fasli(s)
      No. 1421, 1423 and 1424. As noted above, the substantive Order dated
      04.02.2019, having never been assailed, has attained finality. Even upon
      receiving copy of the Order dated 04.02.2019 on 10.10.2020, compliance
      was not made within two months i.e., by 09.12.2020.
D
             21. At this juncture, the Court would pause to indicate that merely
      by the appellants sending a Legal Notice on 06.11.2020, calling upon the
      respondent no.1 to come and collect the rent would not, ipso facto,
      discharge their 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,
E     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
F     deposited before the Revenue Court; as ultimately is stated to have been
      done by the appellants, though belatedly, on 18.02.2021.
            22. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act read as under:
            “3. Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants
G               (1) Subject to the next succeeding sub-sections, no culti-
                vating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part
                therof, by or at the instance of his landlore, whether in
                execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise.
                (2) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, sub-section
H               (1) shall not apply to a cultivating tenant-
K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                      839
        [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

    (a) who, in the areas where the Tanjore Tenants and             A
    Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of
    1952), was in force immediately before the dale of coming
    into force of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protec-
    tion (Amendment) Act, 1956, if in arrear at the commence-
    ment of this Act, with respect to the rent payable to the
                                                                    B
    landlord does not pay such rent within six weeks after such
    commencement or who in respect of rent payable to the
    landlord after the commencement of this Act, does not pay
    such rent within a month after such rent becomes due; or
    (aa) who, in the other areas of the State of Tamil Nadu, if     C
    in arrear at the commencement of this Act, with respect to
    the rent payable to the landlord and accrued due subse-
    quent to the 31st March, 1954, does not pay such rent within
    a month alter such commencement, or who in respect of
    rent payable to the landlord after such commencement, does
    not pay such rent within a month after such rent becomes        D
    due; or]
    (b) who has done any act or has been guilty of any negli-
    gence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land or
    any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the
    land; or                                                        E

    (c) who has used the land for any purpose not being an
    agricultural or horticultural purpose; or
    (d) who has willfully denied the title of the landlord to the
    land.                                                           F
        Explanation I. - A denial of the landlord’s title under a
 bona fide mistake of fact is not wilful within the meaning of
 this clause.
        Explanation II. - In relation to areas where the Tanjore    G
 Panniyal Protection Act, 1952 ([Tamil Nadu] Act XIV of 1952)
 [was in force] immediately before the dale of coming into force
 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment)
 Act, 1956, the expression “commencement of this Act”
 wherever it occurs in this Act shall be construed as referring
 to the date aforesaid.                                             H
840      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A           Explanation III. - In relation to the added territories,
      clause (aa) of this subsection shall have effect as if the
      following clause had been substituted, namely:-
         “(aa) who, if in arrear on the date on which the Tamil Nadu
         Cultivating Tenants Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Ex-
B        tension to Added Territories) Act, 1963, is first published in the
         [Fort St. George Gazette], with respect to the rent payable to
         the landlord and accrued due during a period of one month
         before such date does not pay such rent within a month after
         such date, or who in respect oi rent payable to the landlord
C        after such date, does not pay such rent within a month after
         such rent becomes due; or”
            Explanation IV. - In relation to Kanyakumari district,
      clauses (aa) of this sub-section shall have effect as if the fol-
      lowing clause had been substituted, namely:-
D        (aa) who, if in arrear on the dale on which the Tamil Nadu
         Cultivating Tenants Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Ex-
         tension to Kanyakumari District) Act, 1972, is first published in
         the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette with respect to the rent
         payable to the landlord and accrued due during a period of one
E        moot Is before such date does not pay such rent within a month
         after such date, or who in respect of rent payable to the land-
         lord after such date, does not pay such rent within a month
         after such rent becomes due; or]
      (3)(a) A cultivating tenant may deposit in Court the rent or, if the
F     rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of deposit, to
      the account of the landlord-
         (i) in the case of rent accrued due subsequent to the 31st March
         1954, within a month after the commencement of this Act;

G        (ii) in the case of rent accrued due after the commencement of
         this Act, within a month after the date on which the rent ac-
         crued due;
      (b) The Court shall cause* notice of the deposit to be issued to the
      landlord and determine, after a summary enquiry, whether the
H     amount deposited represents the correct amount of rent due from
K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                            841
        [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

 the cultivating tenant. If the Court finds that any further sum is       A
 due, it shall allow the cultivating tenant such time as it may con-
 sider just and reasonable having regard to the relative circum-
 stances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing
 such further sum inclusive of such costs as the Court may allow.
 If the Court adjudges that no further sum is due, or if the cultivat-
                                                                          B
 ing tenant deposits within the time allowed such further sum as is
 ordered by the Court, the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to
 have paid the rent within the period specified in the last foregoing
 sub-section. If, having to deposit a further sum, the cultivating
 tenant fails to do so within the time allowed by the Court, the
 landlord may evict the cultivating tenant as provided in sub-sec-        C
 tion (4).
 (c) The expression “Court” in this sub-section means the Court
 which passed the decree or order for eviction, or where there is
 no such decree or order, the Revenue Divisional Officer.
                                                                          D
       Explanation I. - In relation to the Shencottah taluk of the
 Tirunelveli district, the expression ‘commencement of this Act’
 wherever it occurs in clause (a) of this sub-section shall be con-
 strued as referring to the date on which the Tamil Nadu Cultivat-
 ing Tenants Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Amendment)
 Act, 1961, is first published in the Fort St. George Gazette.            E

        Explanation II. - In relation to the added territories, the ex-
 pression ‘rent accrued due subsequent to the 31st March 1954’
 occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of this sub-section shall be
 construed as referring to rent accrued due during a period of one
 month before the date on which the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Ten-           F
 ants Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Extension to Added
 Territories) Act, 1963 is first published in the Fort St. George Ga-
 zette.
        Explanation III. - In relation to the Kanyakumari district,
                                                                          G
 the expression rent accrued due subject to the 31st March 1954'
 occurring in sub-clause .(i) of clause (a) of this of this sub-section
 shall be construed as referring to rent accrued due during a period
 of one month before the date on which the [Tamil Nadu] Cultivat-
 ing Tenants, Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Extension to
                                                                          H
842      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     Kanyakumari district) Act, 1972, is first published in the Tamil
      Nadu Government Gazette.
      (4) (a) Every landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant falling
      under subsection (2) shall, whether or not there is an order or
      decree of a Court for the eviction of such cultivating tenant, make
B     an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer and such appli-
      cation shall bear a Court-fee stamp of one rupee.
              (b) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Divisional
      Officer shall, alter giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord
      and the cultivating tenant to make their representations, hold a
C     summary enquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing
      the application or dismissing it and in a case falling under clause
      (a) or clause (aa) of sub-section (2) in which the tenant had not
      availed oi the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the Revenue
      Divisional Officer may allow the cultivating tenant such time as
D     he considers just and reasonable having regard to the relative cir-
      cumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for deposit-
      ing the arrears of rent payable under this Act inclusive of such
      costs as he may direct. If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum
      as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under sub-
      section (3)(b). If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as
E     directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order for
      eviction.
              Provided that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall not di-
      rect the cultivating tenant to deposit such arrears of rent as have
      become Time barred under any law of limitation for the time being
F     in force.
      4. Right to restoration of possession.
      (1) Every cultivating tenant who was in possession of any land on
      the 1st December 1953 and who is not in possession thereof at the
G     commencement of this Act shall, on application to the Revenue’
      Divisional Officer, be entitled to be restored to such possession on
      the same terms as those applicable to the possession of the land
      on the 1st December 1953.
            (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to entitle any
H     such cultivating tenant to restoration of possession-
K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                           843
        [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

    (i) if, on the day this Act comes into force, he is in possession,   A
    either as owner or as tenant or as both, of land exceeding the
    extent specified in the Explanation below or if he has been
    assessed to any sales-tax, profession-tax or income-tax under
    the respective laws relating to the levy of such taxes during
    1953-54 or 1954-55; or
                                                                         B
    (ii) if the landlord, after evicting such cultivating tenant from
    the land [has been carrying on personal cultivation on the land],
    provided as follows:
       (a) the total extent of land held by such landlord inclusive of
       the land, if any, held by him as tenant does not exceed the       C
       extent specified in the Explanation below; and
       (b) the landlord has not been assessed to any sales tax,
       profession-tax or income-tax under the respective laws re-
       lating to the levy of such taxes during 1953-54 or 1954-55;
       or                                                                D

 (iii) if subsequent to the 1st December, 1953, the landlord has bona
 fide admitted some other cultivating tenant to the possession of
 land and such other tenant has cultivated the land before the com-
 mencement of this Act;
                                                                         E
         Provided that where such other tenant is in possession, ei-
 ther as owner or as tenant or as both of any other land which
 exceeds the extent specified in the Explanation below and, the
 cultivating tenant who was evicted is not in possession of any land
 or is in possession of any other land which is less than the extent     F
 specified in the said Explanation, the cultivating tenant shall be
 entitled to restoration of possession.
       Explanation. - The extent referred to in clauses (i) to (iii)
 above is 6-23 acres of wet land.
                                                                         G
        (3) Every application to a Revenue Divisional Officer un-
 der sub-section (1) shall be made within thirty days from the com-
 mencement of this Act, and shall bear a court-fee stamp of one
 rupee;

                                                                         H
844      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A            Provided that the application maybe received after the pe-
      riod of thirty days aforesaid, if the applicant satisfies the Revenue
      Divisional Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the
      application within that period.
             (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (3), the
B     Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after giving a reasonable oppor-
      tunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant, if any, in posses-
      sion of the land, to make their representations, hold a summary
      inquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the appli-
      cation, or dismissing it the Revenue Divisional Officer may im-
C     pose such conditions as he may consider just and equitable includ-
      ing in regard to-
         (i) the payment by the applicant of any arrear of rent already
         due from him to the landlord, but not exceeding in amount one
         year’s rent, and
D        (ii) the reimbursement by the applicant of the landlord or the
         other cultivating tenant in respect of the expenses incurred or
         the labour done by him during the period when the applicant
         was not in possession, on any crop which has not been har-
         vested, if an agreement is not reached between the parties as
E        regards is not reached between the parties as regards the rates
         and manner of such reimbursement.
            Explanation. - In lieu of imposing any condition relating to
      reimbursement as provided in clause (ii), the Revenue Divisional
      Officer may, in his discretion, postpone the restoration of the ap-
F     plicant to possession of the land, until any crop which is being
      grown thereon at the lime when the order is passed, has been
      harvested.
             (5) Any cultivating tenant who after the commencement of
      this Act has been evicted except under the provisions of sub-sec-
G     tion (4) of section 3 shall be entitled to apply to the Revenue Divi-
      sional Officer within two months from the dale of such eviction or
      within two months from the date of coming into force of the Tamil
      Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection ( Amendment) Act, 1956
      (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1956) for the restoration to him of the
      possession of the lands from which he was evicted and to hold
H
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                                 845
            [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

      them with all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a cultivat-   A
      ing tenant. The provisions of sub-section (4) shall, so far as may
      be, apply to such an application.
             Explanation I. - In relation to the Shencottah taluk of the
      Tirunelveli district, the expressions ‘1st December, 1953’ and
      ‘1953-54 or 1954-55 wherever they occur in this section shall be             B
      construed respectively as referring to ‘1st March, 1958’ and ‘1957-
      58 or 1958-59’.
             Explanation II. - Nothing in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)
      shall apply to the added territories.
                                                                                   C
             Explanation III. - Nothing in sub-section (1), (2) and (3)
      shall apply to the Kanyakumari District.”
       23. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
Sections 3 & 4 of the Act would come to their rescue is, in our view,
erroneous, for the reason that as per Section 3 of the Act, late payment           D
of the rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court is clearly a valid
ground for effecting eviction. Likewise, Section 4 of the Act provides for
restoration of possession only in limited cases and that too when the
default is of only one year of lease amount to be paid; whereas in the
present case, the default was for three Fasli years.
                                                                                   E
        24. Reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment of this Court
in S N Sundalaimuthu Chettiar v Palaniyandavan, AIR 1966 SC
469 is misplaced, as it has no applicability to the facts of the present
case. It related to an order made under Section 3(3)(a) of the Act by
which the respondents of the said case were permitted to deposit the               F
arrears of rent holding them to be ‘cultivating tenant’ under Section 2(a)
of the Act being covered under Section 2(ee) of the Act which defines
the meaning of the expression ‘carry on personal cultivation’. The Revenue
Court’s finding of the respondents being ‘landlord’ and the appellants
being ‘cultivating tenant’ was never assailed by the appellants. Notably,
the challenge by filing the Civil Revision Petition was confined to only           G
the Order of eviction dated 03.12.2021 and not against the original Order
i.e., the Revenue Court’s Order dated 04.02.2019, wherein it was
categorically held that the appellants are cultivating tenants and the
respondents are landlords and which directed for their eviction in the
event of failure to pay the lease rent within two months.
                                                                                   H
846             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A            25. Similarly, apropos the decision in G Ponniah Thevar v
      Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1 SCC 500, we note that the Court
      had only held that cultivating tenant inducted by the person holding life
      estate in that land was also entitled for protection as per the provisions of
      the Act, even against the heirs of the inductor and they can only be
      evicted by following the procedure laid down in the Act for reasons therein
B
      mentioned. In fact, in Paragraph No. 4, it has been noted that Section
      3(2) of the 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. In the case at hand, in fact, the procedure
      contemplated under the Act has been followed. Thus, in our view, the
C     aforesaid decision equally is not relevant in the facts and circumstances
      of the present case.
              26. We are afraid we cannot accord any benefit to the appellants,
      as sought to be taken on the basis of the various orders passed in Suo
      Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, starting from Order dated
D     23.03.2020 [(2020) 19 SCC 10] leading up to Cognizance for Extension
      of Limitation, In Re, (2022) 2 SCC 117, for the reason that the same
      relates to extension of the limitation period for filing Petitions/ Applications/
      Suits/ Appeals/ all other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings within the
      period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under
E     any special laws (both Central and/or State), and has absolutely no bearing
      insofar as the present matter is concerned.
            27. The question of extension of time for compliance of the orders
      of court does not, in any manner, relate to limitation. In any event, in the
      orders, starting from (2020) 19 SCC 10 and till (2022) 2 SCC 117
F     (supra) this Court was not extending, by way of overarching and/or
      omnibus directions, time to comply with and/or obey judicial/court orders.
      Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020
      [(2020) 19 SCC 10] has been commented upon in S Kasi v State,
      (2021) 12 SCC 1, where this Court was pleased to opine as under:

G            “19. The limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/
             appeals/ all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/
             litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in
             respective courts/tribunals. The order was passed to protect
             the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/ applications/ suits/
             appeals/ all other proceedings would become time-barred they
H
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                            847
            [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

      being not able to physically come to file such proceedings.             A
      The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take
      remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The
      law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this
      Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for
      filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals /all other
                                                                              B
      proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have
      to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because
      they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings.
      …”
      (emphasis supplied)                                                     C
        28. More importantly, 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. Finally,
they deposited Rs.28,563/- on 18.02.2021. Ergo, it is manifest that in the    D
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.
       29. Another aspect this Court would not lose sight of is the fact      E
that the 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     F
frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating
tenant.
       30. 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
                                                                              G
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.

                                                                              H
848            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A           31. As far as the width and amplitude of powers of the High Court
      under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, we need only take
      note of, in praesenti, Estralla Rubber v Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001)
      8 SCC 97, and Garment Craft v Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4
      SCC 181. In Estralla Rubber (supra), it was stated:
B           “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
            by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
            is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this
            Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty
            on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within
C           the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty
            expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court
            is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds
            of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the
            jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise
            of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
D           tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty
            and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or
            justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave
            injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the
            High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its
E           power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in
            place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which
            is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
            set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or
            tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding
            is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come
F           to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.
            7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co.
            Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand [(1972) 1 SCC 898 : AIR 1972
            SC 1598] in AIR para 12 has stated that the power under
            Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly
G           and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the
            subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
            authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also
            has been made in this regard to the case Waryam
            Singh v. Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954 SCR 565] . This
H           Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R.
    K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. L. R. EKNATH                         849
            [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.]

        Tarte [(1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297] has observed           A
        that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot
        be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior
        court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of
        appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction
        under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal
                                                                           B
        when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal.
        Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly
        exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the
        impugned order.”
        32. In the more recent Garment Craft (supra), this Court put it    C
thus:
        “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly
        of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand
        Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is
        contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons,       D
        but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction
        exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the
        Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory
        jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to
        reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the
        determination under challenge is based. Supervisory                E
        jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a
        legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
        supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision
        on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
        tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar            F
        Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The
        jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional
        jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
        abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
        The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in
        appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to        G
        justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person
        can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or
        tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary
        relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of
        justice.”                                                          H
850              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A            33. Although the Impugned Judgment is a short one, for the
      additional reasons afore-enumerated, and keeping in view the principles
      enunciated in the preceding paragraphs, we do not deem it appropriate to
      tinker therewith.
             34. On an overall circumspection of the facts and circumstances,
B     this Court does not find any infirmity in Impugned Judgment, and the
      Orders dated 04.02.2019 and 03.12.2021 passed by the Revenue Court.
      Interim order dated 31.10.2022 is vacated.
             35. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

C            36. Any pending application(s) is/are closed.
             37. Costs made easy.


      Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
D




E




F




G




H