GOVINDA GOUDER Vs. DEENAPPA GOUDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions have been brought before this Court under S. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act. 1956. The Petitioner is the landlord of 1.90 acres of land, which is classified under S. 4 (1) (iii) of the Act. The landlord and tenant had an agreement for 11 years, which was executed in the year 1952. Under that agreement the tenant had to Day the rent by cash of Rs. 305 per year. It would appear that the tenant had paid rent in advance for the entire period of 11 years. Nevertheless the landlord had filed a petition before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent under S. 9 (1) of the Act. This Petition was resisted by the tenant In his petition the landlord claimed that the fair rent for the land would be Rs. 3000 per annum. The tenant opposed the application maintaining that the fair rent cannot be charged at anything above Rs. 305 Per annum. The Rent Court conducted an enquiry and ultimately fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1100.

(2.) Against this determination both the tenant and the landlord filed appeals 1981 Mad./16 IX G-34 before the Rent Tribunal, The Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties set aside the order of the Rent Court and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. The principal reason for this remand was that the landlord had failed to arouse the Gazette Notification regarding this market, value of the Produce during the relevant period and he had also failed to examine any of the landowners of adjacent lands.

(3.) In this revision brought by the landlord Mr. Palantswami, his learned counsel submitted that the Land Tribunal had completely misconceived its role as an appellate authority under the Act when it desisted from going into the matter in appeal on merits, but preferred to reprint the case. Learned counsel submitted that it is not open to the Rent Tribunal constituted under the Act to shy at entering upon the determination of fair rent merely for the reason that the District Gazette carrying the figures relating to average market prices of the produce had not been produced by the landlord at the hearing.