ANNAVI MOOPAN Vs. MUNIA MOOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this civil revision petition arises under Section 25 of the Provincial Small cause Courts Act, it raises a very interesting and important question of law. It is very unfortunate that the defendant is not represented before me.

(2.) THE plaintiffs as landlords filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 312-50, said to be due by the defendant towards rent, which, according to them, was payable by the defendant, in respect of the occupation of their lands. It is common ground that the defendant is the tenant of the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the property on 9-6-1963. The respondent-defendant was in occupation of the suit lands, long prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs, and he was also a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is also common ground that, under ex. B-2, fair rent was fixed for this tenement in the occupation of the defendant, in or about December 1956. The case of the plaintiffs is that after 1963 the defendant began to raise sugarcane crop on the leasehold land without their permission and concurrently did not oblige himself either under a contract or by any arrangement to pay increased rent, for using the lands for purposes of raising sugarcane crop. For the year Sobakrithu, the defendant cultivated sugarcane crop but paid only a sum of Rs. 487-50, which was the fair rent fixed in Ex. B-2. When the landlords protested and demanded "a fair rent," which, according to them was at Rs. 5, per cent, the defendant refused to comply with the demand, and, therefore, the plaintiffs had to file the suit to recover the sum of Rs. 312-50, being the balance payable by the defendant based on their estimate of rent. No doubt the plaintiffs have characterised this amount as rent. The defendant took up the position that the plaintiffs are not entitled to anything more than the agreed rent, and as such agreed rent has already been paid, no further amount Is payable. The learned District Munsif who went into the question found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim anything more than the fair rent. He was of the view that, in the absence of any fresh agreement between the parties, no claim for Increased rent or money equivalent for such unauthorised use and occupation could be claimed by the plaintiffs, when Ex. B-2 was in force. He found that the rent fixed in ex. B-2 was for cultivation of any crops, and thus he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The present revision petition is against the said decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif. 2-A. "rent", no doubt, is not defined both in the Madras Cultivating Tenants protection Act 1955 and in the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent)Act 1956, But the latter enactment evolved a procedure to reckon what is known as fair rent under the Act. This is what is provided for in Section 4 of the Act. There is, however, no definition of rent even in this Act. Section 6 of the Act provides that, where in respect of any land fair rent has been determined under the Act, it shall continue in force for five years. One other important provision which has a bearing on the discussion to ensue is Section 15, which reads as follows-

(3.) THE main contention of Mr. T. R. Mani, learned counsel for the landlord, is that the lower Court failed to see that, in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs are not helpless to call upon the Court, as a Civil Court, to exercise its jurisdiction to fix the fair rent as popularly understood, notwithstanding the fact, there is no subsisting contract as is statutorily understood. He would rely upon several passages in Halsbury's Laws of England, Wood fall on Landlord and Tenant, Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant and Anson's Law of Contract. It is necessary to consider the passages cited by him, to find whether the Civil Court, placed in the circumstances as it is, has jurisdiction to fix what can be termed as reasonable compensation that has to be paid by the tenant who is admittedly in occupation of the landlord's property, in the absence of a contract to that effect between the parties. Halsbury (Volume 23) at page 559, paragraph 1229, says-