SAYDUTTI Vs. NOORDEENKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions are between the same parties and are filed under Art.227 of the Constitution, seeking to vacate the orders passed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, against the orders of the Rent Court, Ponnani, fixing fair rent for two holdings under the Malabar Tenancy Act. Both cases involve the same questions and therefore, they are heard together and this order will cover both the cases.

(2.) The petitioners in both the cases are tenants under the respondent and they filed petitions before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent of the holdings under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The Rent Court directed a Revenue Inspector to inspect the lands and submit reports, in pursuance of which he submitted reports. Since these reports were objected to, the Rent Court directed a Commissioner to inspect and submit reports, which was also done. Thereafter, the Rent Court considered the cases and, accepting the reports of Commissioner, fixed fair rent under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act in one case at 51. 6 Palghat Paras and in the other at 50.7 Palghat Paras and the Rent Court also directed the said fair rent to be paid in two instalments in Kanni and Makaram respectively. The landlord respondent appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, who varied the fair rent in the former case from 51.6 to 78 paras and in the latter from 50.7 to 102 paras of paddy and directed the same to be paid in Kanni and Makaram as directed by the Rent Court. The Civil Revision Petitions question the correctness of these orders of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) There was dispute in both cases regarding the extent of the holdings and also regarding the yield. The Revenue Inspector submitted reports regarding both matters and thereafter, the Commissioner also submitted reports thereon. The Commissioners reports disclosed slightly higher yield from the properties than the reports of the Revenue Inspector. The Commissioner actually measured the holdings and showed the extent of the holdings in his reports. Therefore, regarding the extent of the holdings the Commissioners reports cannot be challenged and the learned Subordinate Judge as well as the Rent Court has accepted the said reports regarding extent. There was a third dispute and that related to the question whether the third crop alleged to have been raised in these holdings was also to be taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent. Both the Rent Court as well as the learned Subordinate Judge has excluded the third crop from consideration and the learned advocate of the respondent has fairly conceded before me that the lower courts have rightly excluded the third crop from consideration in fixing the fair rent. The main question, which appears to have been argued before the learned Subordinate Judge and which has been argued before me, is the question regarding the yield from the holdings and I shall now consider that question.