1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1666 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Ramalingam .. Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent Vs. Chellammal .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 6(B) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 against order dated 18.07.2011 passed in M.P.No.61 of 2008 in P.No.160 of 2004 by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court), Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For Respondent : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar ORDER The impugned order dated 18.07.2011 passed in M.P.No.61 of 2008 in Petition No.160 of 2004 by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court), Tiruchirappalli is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed Petition No.160 of 2004 on the file of the Court below, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent. In Petition No.160 of 2004, it has been specifically prayed to evict the respondent. In Petition No.160 of 2004, an ex-parte order has been passed on the basis of the evidence given on the side of the petitioner, wherein it has been specifically directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to the petitioner. In order to set aside the ex-parte order passed in Petition No.160 of 2004, the present petition has been filed in M.P.No.61 of 2008, wherein the Court below has passed a conditional order to the effect that the petitioner/respondent should pay 25% of the amount mentioned in the order to the respondent/land owner/petitioner on or before 21.08.2011. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has strenuously contended that the respondent/petitioner has not claimed agreed rent and her claim is excessive and under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is not bound to pay 25% of the amount mentioned in the order passed in Petition No.160 of 2004 and therefore the order dated 18.07.2011 is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the respondent/petitioner is the owner of the lands in question and the revision petitioner has been enjoying the same for a period of twenty years without paying rent and under the said circumstances Petition No.160 of 2004 has been filed, wherein the revision petitioner has remained ex-parte and due to that the order in question has been passed and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 in the present petition the Court below has passed its conditional order and without complying the condition, the present Civil Revision Petition has been unnecessarily filed and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. As stated earlier, the revision petitioner has been enjoying the properties of the respondent and the respondent as petitioner has filed Petition No.160 of 2004 so as to evict the respondent therein, since he has not paid rents. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/petitioner is that the petitioner has not claimed agreed rent in Petition No.160 of 2004 and further another petition has been pending for fixing fair rent and therefore the conditional order passed by the Court below is totally illegal. The points urged on the side of the revision petitioner can be decided only in main petitions. The only point that has to be considered in the present Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the conditional order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct or the same requires interference? 6. It has already been pointed that the specific case of the respondent/petitioner is that for the past twenty years, the revision petitioner has not paid anything towards rent and further in Petition No.160 of 2004, the revision petitioner has remained ex-parte. Only on the basis of evidence given on the side of the respondent/petitioner, the Court below has passed order in Petition No.160 of 2004. 7. Considering the fact that all the points, which have been putforth on the side of the revision petitioner have to be raised only in the main petitions and also considering that in Petition No.160 of 2004, the order in question has been passed, this Court is of the view that the condition imposed by the Court below is not onerous. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner is ready to deposit 25% of the amount mentioned in the order passed in Petition No.160 of 2004 and to that effect the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be modified. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to deposit of 25% of the amount mentioned in the order passed in Petition No.160 of 2004 and to that extent the present Civil Revision Petition can be allowed in part. 10. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part without costs and the order passed in M.P.No.61 of 2008 in Petition No.160 of 2004 by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court), Tiruchirappalli is modified as follows: The revision petitioner/petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the amount mentioned in the order passed in Petition No.160 of 2004 in the Court below on or before 30.11.2011. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court), Tiruchirappalli. +1 CC to M/s T.Vadivelan, Advocate, Sr.NO.37380 smn C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1666 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 29.10.2011 TR : 04.11.2011 : 3p/3c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/