KRISHNA MENON Vs. KUNHIPPA HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point agitated at the bar in the above C. R. P. is as to whether the landlord is entitled, in a suit for rent against the tenant, to collect what he claims is the market price for paddy even when such price is in excess of the controlled price as defined in the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order 1965. The learned Munsiff has held that what he calls the gazette publication price must prevail but has not gone into the question of the impact of the 'Maximum Prices Order' on the right of a landlord to demand the price of paddy payable to him under the rent deed.

(2.) S.36(1) of the Kerala land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964, lays down that where the rent is payable in kind, it shall be paid either in kind or in money, at the option of the tenant. Clause.2 of that Section is not attracted to the present case since there has been no determination under S.31 nor agreement under S.33 thereof. Therefore, the tenant has to pay the rent in money, since he is not inclined to pay in kind. In such cases, the principle laid down in the ruling reported in State of Kerala v. Sankaran Nambiar ( 1964 KLT 598 ) will apply. Velu Pillai J., speaking for the Court, observed, with reference to a lease deed where paddy was payable by way of rent: