VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. MUHAMMED KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION sought for here is of an order passed by the land, Tribunal, Ottappalam, 6, on the tenants' application for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner the revision petitioner, in respect of a holding, fixing under S-72 F (5) of the: Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, rs. 7,82. 40 as the purchase price. In the Application the tenants, respondents 1 to 10 here prayed for the purchase price being fixed as 16 times the fair rent and the fair rent itself being determined as 50% of the contract rent. The land Tribunal accepted the mode of calculation of the fair rent as 50 % of the contract rent. It was after multiplying the fair rent so arrived at by 16 and fixing the price of paddy as Rs. 3. 68 per para that it arrived at the amount, rs. 782. 40. It took michavarom as the contract rent. The land owner's appeal from the order of the Land Tribunal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur. It is thereafter that the land owner has approached this court in revision.

(2.) THE only grievance of the land owner here is that the contract rent should have been found to be 200 paras of paddy and fair rent and purchase price determined on that basis.

(3.) NO doubt in the definition of the word 'rent' in S. 2 (49) after saying what it means it is also stated that it includes 'michavarom' but does not include 'customary dues'. But that only shows that while customary dues are intended to be excluded michavarom is not intended to be so excluded in calculating rent. That does not mean that'michavarom' is synonymous with 'rent'.