PAVU AMMA Vs. MAYAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendants raises the short question whether a kanamdar can be compelled to pay the rent as stipulated in the contract of Kanom or is liable to pay only the fair rent as fixed by the Rent Court under S.16 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, as amended. It seems to have been doubted on the terms of S.16 of the Act as it was before the amendment, read with S.27 of the Act, whether a kanomdar, though a tenant as defined in the Act, had a right to apply to the Rent Court for the fixation of fair rent. That doubt has now been removed by the amendment introduced in S.16 by the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act XXII of 1956). A Division Bench of this court considered the question in the light of the amendment in Kelappan Nair v. Payingatan ( 1961 KLT 527 ) and held, that the kanamdar has a right to apply. The bench observed:

(2.) But it was contended for the respondent landlord, that the kanamdar is nevertheless bound to pay the contract rent. I fail to see, what is the purpose of fixation of fair rent, unless it be, that the kanamdar is entitled to take advantage of it by paying the fair rent when it is lower than the contract rent. The word tenant as defined in S.3(27) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, includes a kanamdar, and S.31 of the Act enacts:

(3.) In the result, the decree of the Subordinate Judge is hereby set aside and the decree of the Munsiffs restored with proportionate costs here and in the lower appellate court. The second appeal is allowed accordingly.