VADIVELU SAMBAN Vs. ANNADANA CHATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by a tenant under Section 115, C. P. C. is to revise an order of the district Court, West Tanjore, by which it reversed an order of the Rent Tribunal, valangiman at Kumbakonam, fixing fair rent for the holding, and restored the order of the Presiding Officer, Rent Court, Kumbakonam. The application for taxation of fair rent was originally made under the provisions of the Madras cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 1956. Along with this application were tried 158 other similar applications for fixation of fair rent. When these applications were pending disposal, the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 was enacted, which came into force from 2-10-1961. Section 62 of this Act made a partial repeal of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 1956 in so far as they related to a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under a Public Trust. All these applications were, therefore, by agreement of the parties, treated as filed under the provisions of the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961. For the purpose of convenience all the applications were clubbed together, common evidence was recorded and were disposed of by a common order. The rent under the contracts between the landlords and tenants varied between 6 and 71/4 Kalams for a mah. On behalf of the tenants, only two of them gave evidence; a number of witness were examined for the Trust. In 1961, at the direction of the Rent Court, a test harvest was made to find out the yield from certain lands. The Rent Court was not prepared to act on the oral evidence directed for the applicants. Nor was it satisfied that any reliance could be placed on the result of the test harvest. On a consideration of the rest of the oral evidence for the Trusts, it came to the conclusion that the existing rent represented fair rent. On that view, it dismissed all the applications. It does not appear the, in making the disposal, any efforts was made either by the Rent Court or by the parties to differentiate one type of holding from another for the purpose of fixation of fair rent. On appeals by the tenants, the Rent Tribunal agreed with the Rent Court that neither the evidence for the applicants nor the result of the test harvest was useful in determining fair rent. It also agreed with the Rent Court that there was no evidence on record about the actual yield from each of the lands. It thought, however, that to remit all the applications would involve considerable hardship and delay. In view of that, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to consider the evidence on behalf of the trusts and on the supposition that there was no appreciable difference between the various lands, fixed fair rent for two broad classes of lands, single and double crop lands. In coming to that conclusion the Rent Tribunal in the main relied on R. Ws. 3 and 8. Against this order, the trust filed revision petitions to the District Court of West Tanjore. So did some of the tenants, apparently feeling aggrieved by certain observations against their interests in the Rent Tribunal's order. The District Court set aside the Rent tribunal's order on the main ground that the Rent Tribunal went on the worm assumption that all single and double crops lands in the village were of the same quality, and that there was no evidence on the evidence on the yield from the particular lands involved in each of the applications so as to enable the Court to fix fair rent for the same. The District Court also observed that there was nothing in the evidence on record to justify the inference that the fair rent for the lands would be far less than the contract rate. It was of the view that responsibility lay on the tenants to prove what the fair rent would be and it was lesser that the contract rate, and that the tenants failed to establish this. The District Court made further observations that the Rent Tribunal had overlooked the fact that the fair rent fixed by it was in some cases larger than the contract rate. It was on those considerations the District Court allowed the petitions of the landlords. That is how the tenants come before this court.

(2.) ON behalf of the tenants, Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam has contended that the order of the District Court should be set aside on three grounds-- (1) the duty of fixing fair rent under the provisions of the Act lay on the Rent Court and it would not, therefore, be a proper disposal that because there was no evidence on record, as it stood, the applications for fair rent should be dismissed; (2) the onus to prove what is fair rent was wrongly thrown by the District Court on the tenants; and (3) the grounds of interference by the District Court are contrary to the actual findings of the Rent Tribunal. While answering these grounds, Mr. Alagirisami, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the petition under Section 115 c. P. C. raises no question of jurisdiction or material irregularity, and that in any case no revision under that provision is competent.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions, reference may be made to the relevant statutory provisions. The Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961 was enacted to provide for regulating the administration. either by personal cultivation or by lease, of agricultural lands held by Public Trusts and for regulating the relation of Public trusts and their cultivating tenants in the State of Madras. Chapter I of the Act deals with preliminary matters, including definitions of a cultivating tenant and fair rent. Fair rent is defined to mean the rent payable under Chapter IV. Chapter II relates to regulations of cultivation of lands held by Public Trusts and under section 4 it is provided that, on and after the date of the commencement of the act, no Public Trust shall personally cultivate, or lease out land held by such Trust except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A ceiling is placed on personal cultivation by such Public Trust by the following sections. Under Section 8, the public trusts are to lease out the lands reverted to them under Section 7. The rest of the provisions in the Chapter are not relevant for our purpose. Chapter III contains provisions relating to tenancies. Section 18 secures tenants against eviction except on certain grounds indicated in Section 19. Right to restoration of possession in certain circumstances is provided for by Section 20. Then comes chapter IV which by Section 23 enjoins that every cultivating tenant under any public Trust shall be bound to pay to the Public Trust and every Public Trust shall be bound to pay to the Public Trust and every Public Trust shall be entitled to collect from the cultivating tenant fair rent payable under this Chapter. Subsection (7) of this section directs that no Public. Trust shall, after the date of the commencement of the Act, claim or stipulate for payment of any amount by the cultivating tenant in excess of the fair rent or in excess of the Public charges which are expressly made payable by the cultivating tenant by this Chapter or the delivery by the cultivating tenant of any article or thing, in addition to fair rent. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is to the effect that, where the contract of tenancy provides for payment of a rent lower that the fair rent, the former alone will prevail during the contract period. Sub-sec, (1) defines what is fair rent. It is a certain percentage of the normal gross produce or its money value in respect of different types of lands with different facilities of irrigation. Section 28 (1) makes provision for constitution of Rent Courts and Rent Tribunals for the purpose of chapter IV. Then follow Sections 29, 32 and 56: