ORDER
V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 17-11-1998 made in PCTPA No.7 of 1991 by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry.
2. Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that an earlier order passed by the same Revenue Court in the same application No. 7 of 1991, dated 27-07-1994 had been set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No. 2624 of 1994 dated 21-11-1997, further remanding the subject to the Revenue Court to deal with the matter afresh and to arrive at the quantum of arrears of rent on the basis of the materials made available on record, with opportunity for the parties to adduce evidence, if they so choose and hence, the Revenue Court, Pondicherry, had again conducted a full enquiry into the facts and circumstances encircling the case in hand, wherein, the Revenue Court decided that the respondent/tenant is in default of the arrears of rent from the year 1976-77 to 1990-91 and 1991-92 to 2001 on the concluded date of the agreement, further remarking that the tenant had neither produced the satisfactory evidence/ material in the past disputes nor during the present case regarding the specific grounds for remission/reduction of arrears of rent and besides ordering the Respondent Tenant to dispose the first spell covering the period from 1976-77 to 1990-91 i.e., 1110 bags of paddy a sum of Rs. 22,500/- as the coconut yield and a further sum of Rs. 13,500/- for tamarind yield as the quantum of arrears of rent for the said period for the entire extent of the land.
Likewise, the second spell covering the period from 1991-92 to 1997-98 so far as the paddy is concerned, a total quantity of 518 bags, for the coconut yield a sum of Rs. 10,500/- and for the tamarind yield a sum of Rs. 6,300/- would be arrived at as the arrears of rent, thus in the first spell for a period of 15 years and in the second spell for a period of 7 years and besides calculating the paddy in terms of equivalent market price, would ultimately arrive at the total sum of Rs. 5,59,550/- on the basis of the prevailing market rate as in 1997-98 as against the total claim of Rs. 8,83,348/- by the landlords and deducting the amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- which had already been paid by the tenant, would order the respondent/tenant under Section 3(3)(a) of PCTP Act to deposit the said balance of arrears of rent in the Revenue Court within 30 days from the date of issue of the order, thus issuing the final opportunity for the respondent/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as above.
It is only against this order passed by the Pondicherry Revenue Court, the respondent therein has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on grounds such as (i) that the Court below ought to have seen that the scope of the order of remand made in C.R.P.No.l2624/94, it has power only to consider and dispose the materials on record and to decide by recording the reasons as to whether the materials produced by the respondents would prove their entire claim of Rs. 1,68,183.18 or only a portion of the said claim and therefore, the Pondicherry Revenue Court has gone beyond the scope of the PCTP Act and the order of remand made in the above C.R.P. Further ignoring the procedures prescribed for disposing the petition and arbitrarily determining the arrears of rent for the period covering from 1976-1977 to 1990-91 and from 1991-92 to 1997-98; (ii) that the Court below ought to have seen that as per the respondents claim the tenant is liable to pay only Rs. 36,420/- on the date of disposal of the PCTPA and he should have been directed to deposit only the said amount granting a reasonable time; (iii) that the Court ought to have seen that apart from the deposited sum of Rs. 1,39,526.37 the petitioner/tenant had also sent a bankers cheque dated 28-6-1995 drawn on State Bank of India, Pondicherry for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards arrears of rent to the respondents; (iv) that the Court below ought to have seen that the respondents have filed the statement claiming exorbitant amount of Rs. 6,39,040/- as arrears till 1991 and Rs. 2,44,308/- from 1991-92 to 1997-98, without proving even the said claim with the detailed objection filed on the part of the petitioner had not been properly considered by the Court below; (v) that documents listed as item Nos. 1 to 5 were obtained by the Court below behind the back of the petitioner after the orders were reserved without an opportunity for the petitioner to set in his objections there on; (vi) that the recording of the evidence and marking of the documents have been done by the lower Court in violation of the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 4 of the Act; (vii) that the Court below ought to have determined in such petitions only the quantum of arrears due and payable by him as on the date of the said petition as the subject matter for determination; that only on the non-payment of the quantum of determination an eviction order could be passed against the tenant and this position of law has not been properly appreciated. On such grounds the petitioner/tenant would seek the relief of setting aside the order of the lower Court made in the above PCTPA No. 7 of 1991 dated 17-11-1998.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents would admit the petitioner having taken the lands on lease and the payment of a rent of 185 kalams of paddy and the yield of coconut and tamarind trees; that the respondents filed PCTPA No. 24/76 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and the same was allowed on 15-03-1982, against which the revision petition Nos. 1601 and 1632 of 1983 have been filed and the same were remanded on 11-08-1983 to determine the actual arrears; that at this juncture, the petitioner filed PCTPA No. 10/83 claiming fair rent in respect of rent payable for the lands from 1976 and the said petition was also dismissed; that aggrieved the petitioner filed Appeal No. 1/87, which was also dismissed on 28-11-1998.
4. The further case of the respondents as brought forth in the counter affidavit is that in the mean while following the disposal of the Rent Court the petitioner filed I.A.no. 16/87 in PCTPA No. 24/87 for determination of the rent in which the petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the arrears as per order dated 20-01-1988, but the petitioner did not pay any amount in compliance of the said order, inspite of a notice and determination of actual arrears and a calculation memo filed on 8-8-1989; that in consideration of the memo the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,086.37 on 19-08-1991 and since there was no Appeal filed against this Order, the same had become final; that thereafter the respondent landlord filed PCTPA No. 7 of 1991 that the quantification of the lands to the tune of Rs. 1,68,183.18 determined by order dated 27-07-1994 was challenged in CRP No. 2624 of 1994 of this Court and this Court stated that the rent has to be fixed on the basis of pleadings by parties for the particular period and the matter is remanded to the Revenue Court, Pondicherry, to arrive at the quantum of rent, further remarking that it was open to the parties to give fresh evidence, if they so choose.
5. Furnishing the rent payable from 1975-1991, a sum of Rs. 4,12,800/- would be arrived at for Sampa produce and for the Kar a sum of Rs. 48,000/- would be arrived at by the Respondents; that consequent to the remand order the respondents would come forward to say that the landlord filed statements on the quantum of arrears claiming Rs. 6,39,040/- as arrears till 1990-91 and Rs. 2,44,308/- as arrears for 1991-92 to 1997-98 and would further say that the petitioner tenant did not have any objection for the value given by the Statistics Department, based on which report the Revenue Court fixed the market price of paddy, thus on calculation ultimately arriving at a total sum of Rs. 5,59,515/- as arrears of rent based on the prevailing price rate as against the total claim of Rs. 8,83,348/-; that the said quantum of arrears has been arrived at by the Revenue Court, pursuant to the direction of this Court granting liberty to both parties to give fresh evidence and therefore, it is absolutely baseless to contend that the order is bad. On such averments the respondents would pray to dismiss the revision as devoid of merits.
6. During arguments the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner would submit that the Revenue Court could not go beyond its scope of remand; that any statement filed is not pleading and they need not have to be considered; that in order to be considered the amendment has to be carried out and therefore, such statement cannot form part of the records, otherwise it would overwrite the order of remand; that additional evidence would only support beyond the pleadings, no additional evidence would be adduced or filed.
7. The learned Senior Counsel referring to the documents 1 to 6 obtained by the Revenue Court behind the back of the petitioner would point out that the other documents are Official documents and they are marked by the Controller; that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he was not permitted to be cross-examined and no reasonable opportunity was given for the petitioner to be heard in full and therefore, the order is void; that the amounts already paid have not been determined and only on deducting the amounts already paid, the Revenue Court could have arrived at the figure as arrears of rent; that the Court cannot go beyond the petition claimed amount; that the amount prayed for is Rs. 1,68,000/-, no suo motu enhancing is permitted; that the said amount had already been paid as on date; that the eviction order is called the preliminary order and the order of the Court gets vitiated, since being irregular; that the Revenue Court cannot also go twice for the subsequent period to 1991-92 which is beyond its jurisdiction without Authority and suo motu jurisdiction. On such arguments the learned Senior Counsel would exhort that the petitioner is a tenant and being a tenant he should have been issued with the notice to the acquisition proceedings and thereafter, in the award passed, he is entitled to a share of the award amount and therefore, his impleadment to be a party is quite necessary and the lower Court without consideration that he is vital tenant of the property acquired has rejected his plea and would pray to revise the said order as not on merit.
8. On the otherhand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the tenants are chronic defaulters in payment of rents and would prove the same with the help of the memo filed furnishing the relevant dates and events; that regarding the quantum the petitioner never challenges. On such arguments the learned counsel would pray to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition confirming the order of the lower Court.
9. In consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the case covering the Civil Revision Petition, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what is gathered from all sources of information so far as the above Civil Revision Petition is concerned is that an order of remand had been made in C.R.P.No. 2624 of 1994 dated 21-11-1997 by this Court earlier when the same petitioner herein approached this Court setting aside the order of the Revenue Court and with direction to deal with the matter afresh and arrive at the quantum of rent on the basis of the materials available on record. It has been further observed by this Court in the said order of remand, that it is open to the parties to give fresh evidence, if they choose to do so and therefore, the only duty of this Court is to find out whether the Revenue Court, Pondicherry, has dealt with the subject matter as per the directions of this Court issued in its earlier order of remand or whether it had gone either out of scope of the order of remand or acted in excess of jurisdiction than what is required in the circumstances of the case in the light of the order of remand.
10. The main accusation of the revision petitioner is that in the order passed by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry dated 17-11-1998 which is impugned herein the said Court has gone beyond the scope of the order of revision or in any manner acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
11. A careful perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry would reveal that the Court below has traced the history of the case in a careful manner right from the beginning of the case during the life time of Fathima Bi and after her death in the year 1976 by the legal heirs who are entitled to the subject matter had called upon the petitioner/tenant herein to pay the arrears of rent as already agreed to and when he failed to pay the arrears of rent the land lords approached the Revenue Court at Pondicherry in PCTPA No. 24 of 1976 and the said Court as per its order dated 15-03-1982 found that the petitioner/ tenant was in default of agreed arrears and to pay the same within four months failing which he would be evicted.
12. The lower Court would also trace the revision preferred by the tenant in CRP No. 1601/1983 and 1632/1983 and this Court by its order dated 11-08-1983 citing the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court reported in CHINNAMARKATHIYAN Vs. AYYAVOO wherein it has been held that the Revenue Court was under obligation to pass a preliminary order and since this compliance was not there, the order passed in PCTPA No. 24 of 1976 was set aside with a direction to pass suitable order in the light of the principles enunciated in the said decision and as held in this Court in the case reported in SRINIVASA DEVAR VS. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAR (1982 TNLJ 168) further directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 1.12.1983.
13. The Lower Court would also trace that during the pendency of the case before the Revenue Court an application had been made by the petitioner before the Deputy Tahsildar, Villianur to determine the quantum of rent and the said authority having passed an order to continue the same old rent and dismissing the plea of tenant for 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 and on the orders passed thereon the petitioner preferring an appeal before the Rent Tribunal it ultimately came to be dismissed resulting in the tenant remitting into the Government account a sum of Rs.12,086.37, since being arrears amount for the period from 1974-1976 based on which the Revenue Court had ordered to deposit into the Court a sum of Rs.1,86,183.18 towards the subsequent rent arrears. The tenant preferring an appeal in C.R.P.No.2624 of 1994, this Court by its order dated 21.11.1997, had remanded the matter for fresh disposal setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry as aforementioned with directions.
14. Having traced the history of the case in the above said manner the lower Court had further gone into the question of arrears of tenancy to be paid and then the quantum of such arrears from time to time and the other proceedings that took place in the mean time including the execution petition filed on the part of the landlords and the other C.R.P. filed against the order of the Court of execution which ended in dismissal, thus upholding the eviction of the tenant as per E.P.No.1 of 1995. Having preferred the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court, during the pendency of the said S.L.P, a final order has been passed in C.R.P.No.2624 of 1995 by this Court as already seen and the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court having
been dismissed on 7.4.1998 expressing that Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the remand order passed by the High Court for computing the rent actually payable by the tenant and since the proceedings are very old, further directing the Revenue Court to expedite the proceeding, as a result of which the Revenue Court has passed orders assessing the quantum of rent. This Court by its remand order dated 21.11.1997 also had made it clear that the Lower Court could decide the quantum of rent on the basis of the materials available on record, further giving liberty to parties to adduce fresh evidence, if they chose to do so.
15. Now the petitioner has come forward to accuse that this would mean amending the plaint or altering the structure of the original pleading which is beyond the scope of the remand order made by this Court and therefore, it is argued on the part of the tenant that the impugned order passed by the lower Court is liable to be set aside.
16. It is relevant to consider the direction of this Court at this juncture regarding further evidence to be let in by parties, no mention need be necessary that full freedom has been given to parties to record fresh evidence, if they chose to do and the lower Court has permitted the parties to the extent that it was required to file additional pleadings, counter statements, etc, but it is not seen that such a move has been either opposed by the petitioner/tenant herein then and there nor even an exception taken for such additional materials placed on record and there is no point in loitering too much before this Court on this point. The petitioner/tenant himself being a silent spectator rather an amicable party to such additions having been placed on record, since parties were permitted to put any such materials made available on record and also to adduce fresh evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the lower Court has acted beyond the scope of the remand order passed by this Court in allowing the parties to freely file additional statements and record their evidence. So far as calculations are concerned, absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record has been brought to the notice of this Court and further, since it is up to the Revenue Court below to decide such factual questions, coupled with the fact that the determination of quantum of arrears having not been disputed at the relevant time, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute it of late and that too before this Court of revision.
17. On a over all consideration, the Court below has not only arrived at the fair conclusion either in the context of trial or in the conclusions arrived at and therefore, the interference of this Court which is sought to be made by the Revision petitioner/tenant is neither necessary nor called for. No patent error or perversity in approach could be seen from the order impugned nor has there been any legal infirmity or inconsistency that has crept into the impugned order of the Revenue Court at Pondicherry so as to warrant the interference of this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to cause any interference into the well considered and merited order passed by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry.
In result,
i. the above revision petition fails and the same is dismissed;
ii.the order dated 17.11.1998 made in P.C.T.P.A.No.7 of 1991 by the Revenue Court at Pondicherry is hereby confirmed;
iii. however there shall be no order as to costs.