KRISHNA THEVAR Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the tenant against an order of the Rent Tribunal on an application filed by the landlord under S. 9(2) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of fair rent) Act 1956, for fixation of fair rent. The extent of the land leased to the tenant is Ac. 4 - -26 cents. Of this extent, it is stated, 10 cents are rocky. There is a coconut tope containing 75 coconut trees and there are also six tamarind trees and two mango trees, An extent of Ac. 1 - -00 is said to have been cultivated originally with cotton and at the time of the enquiry before the Revenue court plantains were being raised. The original contractual rate for the entire extent was Rs. 500. The Rent court calculated the total yield on the basis of the cultivation in fasli 1370 at Rs. 3095. In this total, a sum of Rs. 1500 as yield from plantains which was being raised on an extent of Ac. 1 - -00 went into the computation. Observing that plantains were cultivated there for the first time and that once earlier, cotton had been cultivated, the revenue court in assessing the fair rent excluded the income from plantains on the oat acre and took into consideration the normal income that could be obtained if that one acre was also cultivated with cotton. On this basis, the normal estimated yield from the land was fixed at Rs. 1865 and the fair rent was settled at 33 -1/3 per cent. This, rounded of, works to Rs. 622. On appeal, the Rent Tribunal while fixing the fair rent took into consideration the yield from the plantains. There is a slight difference as to the income from the other crops but this was not the subject of any complaint. For the plantains, the Tribunal held that there were six hundred plantain trees and the yield therefrom would be Rs. 1300 at Rs 2 per tree. The total income was thus computed at Rs. 2905 and the fair rent was settled at Rs. 970 that is at 33 -1/3 per cent in a round figure for the purpose of convenience. In this revision, which has been preferred by the tenant, the principal contention raised is that the tribunal erred in settling the fair rent on the basis of the income from plantains. Learned counsel contends that apart from the provisions of S. 15 of the Act now under consideration even otherwise, the revenue court has failed to appreciate that the evidence showed that the plantains begin to yield only at the and of two years. The income that can be got from the plantains will be only after two years and not at the end of the first year itself as assumed. Learned counsel submits that apart from the legality of it, grave injustice would be done to the tenant by including the income that can be derived in two years as a normal income for one year, obviously considering the difficulty of taking into the computation of fair rent, yield from plantains, sugar cane and similar crops. S. 15 specifically exempted the land on which such crop is raised from the application of the Fair Rent Act. S. 15 exempting such lands runs thus: - -

(2.) That being so, the Tribunal has gone wrong in calculating fair rent for the laud under plantain cultivation. In C.R.P. 1668 of 1959, while considering how the fair rent must be assessed in respect of a holding when on a portion sugar cane, a crop of the kind contemplated under S. 15 was raised, Ramachandra Iyer J, as he then was, observed :

(3.) Now, in this case, I do not find any evidence that the raising of plantains on this one acre is casual. Admittedly, the plantain is a crop which would stand at least for two years. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord, submits that the land now under plantain cultivation may be left out of the computation and he may be allowed to have his remedies in law, in respect of that ore acre and recover contractual rent or such rent as he may be able to recover in law without reference to the Fair Rent Act. When in fact plantains are being raised and is now the main crop on the parcel and the evidence only shows that on an earlier fasli cotton was raised, it is neither fair nor convenient that the rent for the one acre must be treated as one in which cotton is being raised and the fair rent fixed for that land also. I respectfully follow the principle enunciated by Ramachandra Iyer J, as he then was, referred above and hold that the proper thing in a ease of this kind where in fact crop of the type contemplated in S. 15 is being raised on a parcel of land leased to leave out that parcel for the computation of the fair rent and fix the fair rent in respect of the remaining area. The rent for the parcel thus left out will be outside the Fair Rent Act, and need not necessarily be the portion of the contractual rent proportionate to the area. The rent of the parcel will depend on the relative fertility, facility for irrigation and similar factors. Counsel are agreed that the fair rest may be fixed for the remaining extent of Ac. 3 -26 cents here itself and that it works out to Rs. 570 in a round sum. Leaving the income of Rs. 1200 from plantains we get for the total value of the normal gross produce on the remaining extent Rs. 1205. Out of this 3301/3 per cent would be Re. 568 -1/3 and the fair rent could be fixed at Rs. 570 as submitted. The order of the Rent Tribunal is modified accordingly, the fair rent being fixed at the sum of Rs. 570 on an extent of Ac. 3 -26 cents. An extent of Ac. 1 -00 under lease to the petitioner tenant under plantain cultivation is exempted from the Fair Rent Act, XXIV of 1956. The revision is allowed as above indicated. There will be no order as to costs.