SAKUNTALA AMMAL AND ORS. Vs. KADIRESA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in these Revision Petitions is one Kadiresa Padayachi. He is a tenant holding three items of wet lands, S. No. 50/1 of an extent of 72 cents, R. S. No. 48 of an extent of 2 acres, 48 cents, R.S. No. 54/49 of an extent of 27 cents under three different landowners in the village of Mangalam, Papanasam taluk, Tanjore district. These landowners arc the petitioners in these petitions. The respondent claimed to be a ' cultivating tenant' entitled to the benefits of Madras Act XXIV of 1956. He filed three applications for fixation of fair rent under Section 9 of that Act. He was admittedly cultivating the lands under what is called ' waram' tenure by which the produce is shared in certain proportion between the landowner and the cultivator. Previous to the filing of these three applications there were disputes between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the rent payable, and it is common ground that the parties entered into an agreement filed before the Conciliation Officer, Kumbakonam in E. Dis. No. 155 of 1956 by which the respondent agreed to deliver the petitioners 40 per cent of the yield in each year. The landowners, the petitioners objected to the fixation of fair rent mainly on the ground that the agreement recorded before the Conciliation Officer, Kumbakonam was valid and binding, and could not be reopened or set aside. The Rent Court, Kumbakonam, passed a common order in these applications overruling the objection of the present petitioners and fixing fair rent. In each case the fair rent fixed is a quantity of paddy and a few bundles of straw. It is not necessary to give the particulars of fair rent fixed. The present petitioners preferred appeals against the said decision to the Rent Tribunal under the Act, the District Munsif of Valangiman at Kumbakonam. They reiterated the contentions urged by them before the Rent Court, but did not succeed. The appeals were dismissed. Hence these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the landowners.

(2.) THESE petitions were heard in the first instance by our learned brother, Kailasam, J. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended before the learned Judge that the fixation of fair rent under the Act would amount to a conversion of the waram tenure, admittedly subsisting between the parties, into a tenancy agreement for a fixed rent, and that the provisions of the Act did not permit such change of tenure. The respondent relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Ramayyan v. Seshappayyar 71 L.W. Summary of Recent Cases, p. 111 in which Ramachandra Iyer, J., as he then was, took the view that there was no prohibition under the Act for the Rent Court to settle or fix fair rent even in respect of waram tenures. The learned Judge, Kailasam J., directed these Revision Petitions to be posted before a Bench for disposal, as he was unable to agree with that decision.

(3.) MADRAS Act XXIV of 1956 is intended to regulate the rent payable by a cultivating tenant to the landowner so as to avoid avaricious rack renting by landowners and to prevent cultivators from fattening on the lands at the expense of the owners. It will be convenient to refer to the salient provisions of the Act quite briefly.