RAMJI RAO Vs. CHINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of rent due for the Malabar year 1140. The contract of lease between the parties is evidenced by Ex. B 1 dated 27-5-1948. The rent fixed in Ex B 1 is 22 parahs of paddy per annum. It is seen from Ex. B 1 that a sum of Rs. 200/- was received by the plaintiff from the defendant for which interest at 8 parahs of paddy per annum is stipulated. According to the terms of Ex. B 1 the defendant is entitled to appropriate the interest due to him from out of the rent payable to the plaintiff. In O. A. No. 1492 of 1964 fair rent for the property comprised in Ex. B 1 has been fixed at 16 1/2 mudra parahs of paddy per annum under the provisions of Kerala Act 1 of 1964. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the value of 16 1/2 mudra parahs of paddy being the rent payable for 1140 M.E. One of the contentions raised by the defendant with which alone we are concerned in the civil revision petition is that he is entitled to appropriate the interest due to him from out of the fair rent and he is liable only for the balance. The plea of the defendant was upheld by the learned Munsiff and the plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of the value of 8 1/2 parahs of paddy. The plaintiff claims in the civil revision petition a decree for the value of the balance 8 parahs of paddy.

(2.) An almost identical question arose for decision in Kunhi Velayi alias Velayudhan v. P. K. Velayudhan 1961 KLT 449 . The facts were that the landlord filed a suit for recovery of fair rent fixed under the provision of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The tenant claimed for deduction of the interest due on the munpattom amount from the rent. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the right to deduct paddy on account of interest cannot survive the proceedings for the fixation of fair rent and the right of the tenant to claim interest was lost on account of impossibility of performance or frustration. In overruling these contentions M. A. Ansari, C. J. observed thus:

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) have brought about a radical change in the relationship of landlord and tenant and the contract under Ex. B 1 has been discharged on account of the doctrine of frustration and therefore plaintiff is not liable for any interest on the sum of Rs. 200/- received under Ex. B 1 Apart from the question of the applicability of the doctrine of frustration to agricultural leases it is not possible to hold that the supervening legislation has rendered the contract evidenced by Ex. B 1 totally impossible of performance. With reference to the doctrine of frustration their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Satyabrata v. Hugneeram AIR 1954 SC 44 observed thus: