SELLAKUMARA GOUNDER Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the tenant in proceedings under the Madras Cultivating Tenant (Payment of Fair Rent) Act (XXIV of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Three objections are taken in the main to the order of the Rent Court, which was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Tribunal. The first objection is as to the fixing of the cash value of the income from the parcel of lands on which ragi, kambu and turmeric had been cultivated. It is submitted for the tenant that there was no evidence on the record as to the price of these produce at the relevant period. The karnam has been examined as a Court witness and the Courts below have accepted his evidence as unimpeachable testimony. But the Karnam does not give the price of these produce, nor do we find on the record any material as to the market price as provided for in Rule 15 of the Rules under the Act. To this objection, the Rent Tribunal has simply observed that the Tahsildar as revenue officer must be familiar with the current local prices of the various produce. Judicial Tribunals must act and give their findings on evidence brought on record and not on information they might have gathered otherwise or may be within their knowledge however authoritative. I think that the Petitioner is justified in his contention that the prices in respect of these three kinds of produce above referred to have not been fixed on any legal evidence.

(2.) The next objection taken is as to the form of the order. Learned Counsel for the tenant contended before the Rent Tribunal that the Rent Court has not given the option to the tenant to pay the rent in kind as provided for in Sec. 5 of the Act. The Tribunal agrees with the tenant that the Rent Court was wrong in not giving option to the tenant to pay the rent -in kind. But the appeal of the tenant was dismissed straightaway and no modification of the order of the Rent Court made. It is necessary that the order should have been suitably modified in terms of the finding that the tenant was entitled to the option to pay rent in kind under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act. The third objection refers to the taking into consideration produce from certain parcels of land under lease which had been cultivated with sugarcane and plantains. Learned Counsel for the tenant points out that under Sec. 15 of the Act, any land which, during the relevant period, had been used for raising, as main crop, sugarcane, plantain or betel vines or of the kind which do not give yield for a continuous period of two years, must be exempted from the provisions of the Act. In this case it is found that a parcel of land of the extent of 1 acre 92 cents had been cultivated with sugarcane. On another parcel, 16 cents in extent, plantains had been raised. Under the provisions of Sec. 15 the income from these lands ought not to be included in the computation of fair rent, if the crops raised were the main crops on these parcels of land. This had not been taken note of by the Courts below. Recently, in Krishna v/s. Muthammal, ILR (1968) Mad. 38 following an earlier decision of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1668 of 1959, I have observed that the proper thing in a case where, in fact, crops of the type contemplated in Sec. 15 are being raised as main crop on a parcel of land leased, is to leave out that parcel from the computation of the fair rent and fix fair rent in respect of the remaining area. The rent for the parcel thus left out will be outside the fair rent Act and has to be ascertained under the general law. It need not necessarily be the portion of the contractual rent proportionate to the area. The rent for the parcel depend on the relative fertility, facility for irrigation and similar factor. Inasmuch as in the fair rent as now fixed the produce from plantains and sugarcane has also gone for computation, the fair rent fixed for the holding cannot be maintained.

(3.) As the complaint of the tenant on all the three grounds above stated is justified, the fair rent fixed has to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Rent Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the merits. I may here point that so far as the yield from the other parcels of land, that is, other than the parcels of land on which plantain and sugarcane has been grown, is concerned, the finding of the Courts below, based on the evidence of the karnam as C.W. 1 is not open to exception. Even as regards the cash value of the produce, except in regard to ragi, kambu and turmeric the cash value found is not open to impeachment. The Rent Tribunal will consider the matter and fix the fair rent in the light of the above observations. It will be open to the Rent Tribunal to take in such additional and further evidence as the parties may choose to adduce in the matter.