PORANCHU Vs. KOCHUGOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. THE suit is for renewal of a kanam. THE point raised in the second appeal relates to the enhancement of michavaram under S. 34 of the Cochin Tenancy Act, XVof 1113. S. 34 provides: "34 (a ). THE pattam may be proportionately enhanced if during the currency of the kanam or of the last renewal, as the case may be, (1) the area of the holding actually under cultivation has increased; (2) the productive power of the land comprised in the holding has increased on account of a specific cause not merely temporary or casual; (3) where the land demised is paramba, the number of trees in the holding on which pattam is assessable has increased; or (4) the land being paramba, the average local price of the produce of the trees on which pattam is assessable has risen. Where reclamation or other permanent improvement was effected at the expense of the kanam-tenant and has contributed to the increase in the area under cultivation, the productive power of the land or the number of assessable trees taken account of under this section, the cost of such improvement shall be determined in accordance with Chapter II of this Act and the enhancement of pattam shall be reduced by the amount of interest on such cost calculated at the same rate as on the kanam amount. (b) THE pattam may be proportionately reduced, if during the currency of the kanam or of the last renewal, as the case may be, (1) the area of the holding has been diminished by causes beyond the control of the tenant, such as action of the sea, river or lake; (2) the soil of the holding has permanently deteriorated such deterioration was not due to improper use or neglected by the tenant; (3) where the land is paramba, the number of trees in the holding on which pattam is assessable has been diminished by causes beyond the control of the tenant; or (4) the land being paramba, the average local price of the produce of the trees on which pattam is assessable has fallen". THE dispute between the parties relates to the interpretation of the term "cost of improvement". According to the plaintiff, it is the cost incurred by the tenant for making the improvement that should be taken into consideration while according to the defendants it is the value of improvements that should be taken into account. THE trial court held that the term "cost of improvement" referred to in the Section has to be interpreted as value of improvement. THE same view was taken by the lower appellate court also.

(2.) I am unable to agree with the view taken by the courts below on the question. The plain meaning of the words "cost of improvement" is the cost incurred for making the improvement. Value of improvement is the compensation to be paid to the tenant at the time of eviction. The interpretation put up on the term "cost of improvement" by the courts below is based on the fact that it is provided in section that cost of improvement shall be determined in accordance with Chapter II of the tenancy Act. Chapter II relates to compensation for improvements to be paid to the tenant at the time of eviction. It was therefore taken that what is meant by the term "cost of improvement" is compensation for improvement. But chapter II contains provisions relating to cost of improvement also. S. 10 coming within that Chapter provides: "when the improvement is not an improvement to which s. 8 or 9 applies, the compensation to be awarded shall be the cost of the labour including supervision thereof and of the materials together with other expenditure, if any, which would, at the time of the valuation, be required to make the improvement, less a reasonable reduction on account of the deterioration, if any, which may have taken place from age or other case". S. 14 empowers the Diwan to prepare tables showing the cost of (1) cultivating and harvesting a crop of paddy, (2) planting, protecting and maintaining a cocoanut tree, an arecanut tree, a jack tree and peppervine, until the tree or vine is in bearing and (3) protecting and maintaining a coconut tree, an arecanut tree, a jack tree and a pepper-vine for one year when in bearing. It is clear from this that Chapter II contains provisions relating to the cost of improvements apart from the value of improvements. In L. L. R. 1956 TC 138 this court has held that planting and rearing cocoanut trees is an item of permanent improvement. When such improvement has contributed to the increase in the number of assessable trees it is provided in the section that the enhancement of pattam shall be reduced by the amount of interest on the cost of the improvement. It is obvious that what is meant by the section is the cost incurred by the tenant for making the improvement and not value of the improvements payable to him at the time of eviction.