A NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. MOYU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, under Art.227 of the Constitution, arising out of proceedings before the Rent Court of Perintalmanna, two points alone were urged by the counsel for the petitioner, landlord.

(2.) The first related to the expenses for putting up a fence in the property, taken into account by the Rent Court in arriving at the total expenses for cultivation. The cost of the fence allowed is 4 paras of paddy per acre, the total extent of the property being 1 acre 92 cents. The contention of the petitioners counsel was that this is not an item of expenditure which can be taken into account by the Rent Court under R.3-B of the Malabar Tenancy (Determination of Fair Rent) Rules, 1954. That Rule reads as follows: -

(3.) The second point urged by the petitioners counsel was that the Rent Court had acted wrongly in reducing the Revenue Inspectors estimate of the gross produce. Good reasons have been given by the Rent Court for differing from the Revenue Inspectors report, and the Rent Court has acted on the strength of the settlement estimate. The Rent Court is entitled to differ from the Revenue Inspectors, report if there are adequate grounds for doing so, and in this case there was not only adequate grounds but the finding of the Rent Court has also been confirmed by the Appellate Court.