M V LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA Vs. CHIKKASIDDE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner in this revision petition. He filed an application under the provisions of S.42(3) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal at Srirangapatna which was numbered as RRC. No.303/69-70. In that application, he stated that the respondent was a tenant of the land in question and the agreement in 1960-61 was for payment of 8 candies of paddy in 180 seers measure. It was further stated that in the year 1968-69, the tenant has grown sugar cane and has delivered 70 tons of the same to the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkana and is, therefore, liable to pay 1/4th of the value viz., Rs.2,750 out of Rs.11,000 delivered by him. The tenant resisted that application. It was contended that the agreement wag only to pay 7 candies and not 8 candies. It was also contended that the landlord was not entitled to recover the amount claimed by him. The landlord examined himself and on a consideration of the evidence, the learned Judge has passed an order directing the tenant to pay rent of 8 candies of paddy in 180 seers measure or its value under S.9(2) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act and the tenant was entitled to a deduction of Rs.234 being the land revenue paid by him since the same has not been paid by the landlord. The correctness of this judgment was challenged by the landlord before the Court of the District Judge at Mandya, The learned District Judge by his judgment dt.7-6-1970 has dismissed the same. This revision petition is filed against that order.

(2.) Under the provisions of S.8 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent has been determined. It is provided in that section that notwithstanding any law, custom, usage, agreement or the decree or order of a Court to the contrary, the rent payable by a tenant shall be paid annually and such rent shall not exceed 1/4th of the gross produce or its value in cash in the case of land possessing facilities for assured irrigation from a tank or a river channel, and 1/5th of the gross produce or its value in cash in the case of any other land. By the proviso it is stated that where the rent payable by any tenant under any contract ia less than the maximum rent specified in clause (b) such tenant shall not be liable to pay more than such rent. It is not disputed that in the present case that there was no agreement between the parties with regard to the payment of rent for the year 1968-69. If there is no agreement with regard to the payment of rent for the year 1968-69, the landlord would be, as provided under S.8(b) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, entitled to recover 1/4th or 1/5th of the produce depending upon as to whether the land possesses the facilites tor assured irrigation from a tank or a river channel or otherwise. The Courts below, however, have rejected the claim of the landlord on the ground that the landlord is not entitled to anything more than 8 candies of paddy. In my view, this view is erroneous. It is clear from the statement and the deposition of the landlord that there was no agreement for the year 1968-69 with regard to payment of rent between the landlord and the tenant. In the absence of that agrement, the landlord was entitled to recover rent as provided under S.8(a) or (b) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act. It is also important to note that S.9(4) of the Act provides that when there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant as regards the rent payable, then it is competent for the Court to determine the same, on the application of the landlord or the tenant. In the present case, the application has been filed under S.42(3) of the Act for payment of the arrears of rent and when such an application is filed, it is competent for the Court to determine the dispute between the landlord and the tenant as regards the rent payable and pass an appropriate order. As the Courts below have rejected the claim of the landlord on the sole ground that there is no agreement regarding the produce to be given for the years in question, the Courts below have held that the rent which was agreed once must be taken to be the basis for awarding the amount even during the current year. This is oppsed to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Annavi Moopan v. Munia Moopan, AIR 1969 Mad. 437. In that case, it was held that the Courts are not helpless in adjudicating the rights of parties in relation to quasi-tenancies or quasi-contracts. It was further stated as under :