MUHAMMED KASSIM Vs. VELLODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in an application filed under S.106 (1A) of the K. L. R. Act is the revision petitioner. The predecessor - in - interest of respondent 1 and 2 purchased 6 cents of land comprised in R. S. No. 101/7 of Ariyur Thekkummuri Desom of Ottapalam - I Village. This property originally belonged in jenm to Vengeri mana who had demised the same on kanom. The predecessor in interest of the respondents 1 and 2 took assignment of the kanom right from one Narayana Menon under document No. 1450/64. He also took assignment of jenm right from Vengeri mana by document No. 324/67. Originally the property comprised of 3 items and the 1921 lease in favour of Narayanan Nair was for a monthly rent of Rs. 7/- and after deducting 0.50 ps towards 'muppattam' the rent payable 'was Rs. 6.50/-. As regards 'item No. 3, the rent payable was Rs. 4/-. Thus, the total rent payable by the lessee was Rs 10.50/-. The right of lessee devolved on the father of the present revision petitioner and on his death the petitioner herein became the lessee. Admittedly, the lessee is entitled to special protection under S.100 of the K. L. R. Act and the rent payable was only Rs 10.50. The lessor wanted enhancement of the rent. An application was filed under S.106 (1A) of the Act before Land Tribunal No. 1, Ottapalam. The Tribunal revised the rent and held that the lessee was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal and hence this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Shri K. B. Menon mainly raised two contentions. It was urged that the Land Tribunal No. 1, Ottapalam had no jurisdiction to deal with the petition under S.506 (1A) of the K. L. R. Act, and that the enhancement of rent now allowed by the Land Tribunal is highly excessive and not in consonance with the relevant tenancy rules prescribed for the same. The respondents' counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned order.

(3.) Under S.106 (1A) of the Act the lessor or the lessee may apply to such authority as may be prescribed for varying the rent and on such application, such authority after taking into consideration such matters as may be prescribed and after giving the lessor and lessee an opportunity of being heard shall pass order on the application. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Land Tribunal No. 1, Ottapalam was not a prescribed authority to deal with petition under S.106 (1A). S.99 of the Act deals with the constitution of the Land Tribunal. It says that the Government may by notification in the Gazette, constitute one or more Land Tribunal or Land Tribunals for any area or for any class of cases specified in the notification, for the purpose of performing the functions of a Land Tribunal under this Act. Clause (2) of Sen. 99 says that the Land Tribunal shall consist of a sole member who shall be a judicial officer of the rank of a Munsiff or an officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar, appointed by the Government Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced copy of the notification issued by the Revenue Department in the Kerala Gazette No. 34 dated 2nd September, 1975. This notification says that in supersession of Notification No. 16924/NI/70/LRD dated the 10th December, 1979 published as S.R.O. No. 430/70 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 10th December. 1970 as subsequently amended, the Government of Kerala constituted the Land Tribunal for each of the areas specified in column (2) therein and for the entire District of Palghat and Perintalmanna Taluk in Malappuram District, Munsiff, Palghat has been invested with the powers to perform the functions of the Land Tribunal under the K.L.R. Act other than S.31, 66, 72 to 720 (both inclusive), 80A to 80G (both inclusive), S.90 and sub-s.(3) and (4) of S.125 of the said Act and sub-s.(1) of S.108 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (35 of 1969).