ORDER
Bellie, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Lalgudi, allowing a petition filed by the tenant under Section 7(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1989 for restoration of possession of the property of which he was a cultivating tenant and where from he has been evicted.
2. It was contended on behalf of the respondent/landlord that after obtaining possession from the tenant, the land has been leased out to another person. This contention was rejected by the Revenue Court and the petition was ordered.
3. Now, in the revision filed by the landlord, it is contended that when the order was passed by the Revenue Court. Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1989 was repealed and therefore the order is illegal. But I find no substance in this contention. It is not in dispute the petitioner had been filed in time and when the Act was in force. The Act was in force for certain period, that is upto 31.3.1991. When the order was passed that period was over.
4. However, it is provided in Clause 4 of Section 1 that
Upon the expiry of this Act, the provisions of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1891) shall apply as if this Act had been repealed by a Tamil Nadu Act.
The material portion of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act provides that,
Where any Act, to which this chapter applies, repeals any other enactment, then the repeal shall not-
(a) affect anything done or any offence committed, or any fine or penalty incurred or any proceedings begun before the commencement of the repealing Acts:
5. Therefore even though the Act 41 of. 1989 had expired by the time the order was passed, by virtue of Section 1, Clause 4 read with Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the order passed by the Revenue Court is absolutely valid.
6. As regards the contention raised that the land has already been leased out to another tenant, this contention has not been raised in the first counter filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and only in the second counter filed this contention has been raised. Even the alleged second tenant has not been examined, even though notice has been sent to him by the court at the instance of the landlord. Rightly, therefore, the court below did not believe that the land has already been leased out to another tenant. Thus considering, I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.
7. The landlord will be allowed to harvest the crops already raised by him.