PERIA MARIA GOUNDEN Vs. P.K. RAMASWAMI GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition raises the question whether a landlord would be entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Madras Fair Rent Act (XXIV of 1956) (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), and institute proceedings for fixation of a fair rent against a cultivating tenant who owns or enjoys as a tenant lands exceeding 6 2/3 acres. The petitioner obtained a lease for a period of three years from the year 1953, of an extent of 19.68 acres of lands which were partly garden lands and partly dry lands with coconut trees from the owner, one Palani Chettiar. The rent reserved under the lease was Rs. 625 per annum.

(2.) THE question whether, notwithstanding the fact that a cultivating tenant either owns or cultivates as tenant or owner or both, a greater extent of land than 6 2/3 acres, can be proceeded against at the instance of a landowner for fixation of a fair rent under the provisions of the Act, depends on the construction of Section 14. That section runs:

(3.) THE Act is in pari materia with the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955. It is part of a scheme of legislation for bettering the conditions of cultivating tenants. The Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act which would apply to all cultivating tenants defined thereunder, regardless of the question whether such a tenant was in occupation of a small extent of land or a large extent of land, prevents the landowner from evicting the tenant even after the expiry of lease except under the provisions of the Act. This enables a continuance of the original tenancy, so long as the cultivating tenant has not been evicted from his holding under the provisions of the Act. The landlord being thus prevented from exercising his right to get the property on the expiry of the lease and lease it at competitive rates to the other people, the common sense and justice would require that there should be a provision for enabling the landlord to obtain a fair rent. The present case furnishes a good example of the injustice that might be done to the landowner in case the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act alone were to remain. The rent for the lands in the instant case was fixed at Rs. 625 in the year 1953. Since then, prices of the cash crops grown on the land and of coconuts yielded by the trees have increased considerably. There is no justifiable reason why the landlord should not get his legitimate share of the value of the produce -according to the changed circumstances, and why the tenant should alone be entitled1 to profit by it, holding the land at the original rent which was fixed in the context of the prices then prevailing. The injustice will be more apparent, when we take the case of a comparatively poor landowner leasing his properties on cash rent basis to a rich person who happens to satisfy the definition of the term "cultivating tenant." The tenant will profit by the increase in price, while the unfortunate landlord will have to be content with the original rent. The Fair Rent Act provides for the payment of a Fair Rent. That Legislation was not conceived in the interest of the tenant alone, as the words Fair Rent implies that rent should be a just one judged from the point of view of the landlord as well as the tenant. Section 14(1), if interpreted as excluding from the purview of the Act all cases where the tenant is in occupation of more than 6 2/3 acres, would sometimes lead to the anomaly of benefitting an affluent tenant at the expense of a poor landowner. It is therefore, necessary to ascertain what the intention of the Legislature was, when it enacted Section 14(1), as expressed in the statute itself.