THOMMEN OUSEPH Vs. IYPE PAILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this civil revision petition filed under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is whether the parties to proceedings for fixation of fair rent before the Land Tribunal are, in terms of S.102 of the Act, entitled to file cross objection in an appeal filed by the opposite side.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed an application under S.31 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the holding alleged to have been held by him under the respondents. The respondents filed a joint statement before the Land Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the lease was for lemon grass cultivation and that no improvement was effected by the revision petitioner on the land. Subsequently an additional statement was filed to contend that the revision petitioner was a licensee, not a lessee, and, therefore, by virtue of S.3(3) of the Act, fair rent could not be fixed. After going into the matter elaborately, the Land Tribunal, mainly relying on the previous judgments, which according to it would operate as res judicata, found that the petitioner was the cultivating tenant of the land. No appeal was filed by the respondents, but the revision petitioner filed an appeal disputing the quantum of fair rent fixed. It is in this appeal that the respondents herein filed a cross objection objecting to the maintainability of the petition before the Land Tribunal, contending that the revision petitions was not a lessee, but only a licensee. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and allowed the cross objection filed by the respondents herein. It is the correctness of this order that is being challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) It is contended by Sri. K. S. Sebastian, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that the cross objection filed by the respondents herein was sot maintainable for two reasons: