KAMMARAN MANIYANI Vs. MAHALAKSHM1 RAJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am hearing the two petitions together and disposing of the same by a common order, as it relates to the same holding. The petitioners in CRP. No. 1604 of 1977 are the tenants in respect of the property. The landlord's right in respect of which assignment is sought for has vested in the State oft 1st January 1970. Suo motu proceedings were initiated under S. 72b (3) of -Act 1 of 1964. The Land Tribunal by its order, dated 23rd august 1973 held that the petitioners are cultivating tenants of the property and that they are entitled to apply for assignment of the land. The order of assignment was accordingly passed, where the purchase price was fixed at Rs 19,208. 85. There was also direction there that a sum of Rs. 6,750 with interest thereon was to be deducted and the balance alone being payable to the landlords. But in Form I statement issued under sub-section (5) of S. 72f of the act, though the figure Rs. 19,208. 85 was incorporated in the appropriate part (two places) the deduction of Rs. 6,750 was not made. Therefore the tenants filed appeal, A. A. 1787/1973 before the Appellate Authority seeking alteration and clarification on the above points. The Appellate Authority held that rs. 6,750 is liable to be deducted and the Form I statement had not been drawn up in accordance with the final order of the Land Tribunal. This mistake was directed to be corrected by the Land Tribunal showing the deduction, as ordered in para 8 of the final order so that the A party can know the correct amount they are to deposit. It might be noted that the appeal before the Appellate authority had been heard along with A. A. No 2477 of 1973, filed by the landlords. In the final portion of the appellate order, by which both the appeals were disposed of, it had been said that A. A. No. 1787 of 1973 the tenants' appeal is also dismissed subject to the observation on the point in that appeal. In these circumstances the tenants have come up in revision to this court under S. 103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act for clarifying the order, so that no mistake might further be repeated.

(2.) IT is contended in the revision that the Appellate authority having held that the petitioners, the tenants, are entitled to deduct the 'marupattarn' amount of Rs. 6,750 from Rs. 19,208. 85 and liable to pay only the balance, ought to have allowed the. appeal and given appropriate direction to the Land Tribunal to make the necessary corrections where ever the figure rs. 19,208. 85 appeared.

(3.) I have no difficulty in upholding the contention of the tenants in CRP. No. 1604/1977 Really that contention had been accepted both by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority. However, in the last portion of the order of the Appellate Authority as it was stated that the tenants' appeal is also dismissed, they have come up to this court to clear the mistake, if any, that has crept into the order. It is contended by Mr. Venkitakrishnan, learned counsel for the tenants, that the landlords did not question the direction given by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority also states: "the B party did not challenge the correctness of the finding entered in para 8 of the final order in the appeal filed by them as A. A. 2477 of 1973". Though the learned counsel for the landlords contended that he had questioned the same in his revision, I do not think that I should go into that aspect as such, because apart from the decisions of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, in the matter, I myself have no difficulty in accepting the case of the tenants that with the termination of the tenancy, the premium is liable to be paid back to the tenants. It was contended by the learned counsel for the landlords that in proceedings for arrears of rent before the Land Tribunal the tenants have pleaded that they may adjust the 'muppattom' amount in the arrears of rent. I am remitting the matter to the land Tribunal for proper inclusion of the amount of premium in the final purchase order for deducting from the purchase price. However, if the landlords are able to show before the Land Tribunal that such amount has already been adjusted by the tenants in the arrears of rent due from them, this will be taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal and then there may not be a fresh readjustment of the same from the purchase price. CRP. No. 1604 of 1977 is disposed of accordingly.