MADHAVAN Vs. RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. He applied for fixation of fair rent and the fair rent was fixed by the Land Tribunal which was modified in appeal by the appellate authority. It is against the judgment of the appellate authority that he has come up in revision.

(2.) The first point argued is as to the date from which the order fixing fair rent is to take effect. According to the tenant the order should take effect from 1-4-61, which was accepted by the Land Tribunal. The learned appellate authority in modification of the order of the Land Tribunal has fixed 6-7-65 as the date from which the order fixing fair rent should take effect. This date, namely 6-7-65 was the date on which the application for fixation of fair rent was presented by the petitioner. The contention of the tenant is that the application was filed by him as early as on 27-1-62, that is under Act 4/61 and under S.132(4)(ii)(a) of Act 1/64, all applications for determination of fair rent, filed or purported to have been filed under the previous Act, viz., Act 4/61 shall be deemed to have been filed under the latter Act, Act 1/64 and are to be disposed of according to the provisions of the latter Act. S.132(4)(ii)(a) reads:-

(3.) About the extent of the property, it was argued that the appellate authority has calculated fair rent in respect of 45 cents in excess of what was calculated by the Land Tribunal. This is not correct. The Commissioner appointed in the case reported the correct extent of the property (R. S.915 as one acre and 61 cents). This report was accepted by the Land Tribunal; but in dealing with the extent the Land Tribunal by mistake noted the extent as 1 acre and 16 cents, instead of 1 acre and 61 cents. So, in fact, no excess area has been taken into consideration by the appellate authority. What is taken into consideration is only the area which the survey number possessed in fact. The calculation is,