HIDAYATHULLA Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in Fair Rent Petition No. 95 of 1973 on the file of the Conciliation Officer (Rent Court) Mayuram has directed this revision against the judgment made in R. T. A. No. 30 of 1974 on the file of the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif) Sir Kali. The facts of the case which led to this revision are as follows: -The tenant respondent herein filed a petition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, for fixation of fair rent in respect of the land shown in the petition, namely 5.60 acres cultivation by him in Patharakudi Village, Sir kali Taluk. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the petitioner herein. The Landlord resisted the above claim of the respondent -tenant on the grounds (i) that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non -joiner of parties; (ii) that the tenant -respondent is not entitled to the benefits of the Act as he was in possession and enjoyment of a total extent of 8.07 acres of land on the crucial date; and (iii) that the tenant is raising double crop in certain extent of lands contrary to the terms of the lease. Before the Rent Court three witnesses were examined on the side of the tenant and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 was marked. On the landlord's side three witnesses R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. R. 1 to R. 4 was marked. The Rent Court, on a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and on an examination of the question as to whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the Act 24 of 1956, found as follows:

(2.) On the above observations, the Rent Court dismissed the application; but on appeal by the tenant, the Rent Tribunal, placing reliance on Exs. B6 and B7, was not inclined to believe the contention of the landlord that the said Rajangam (the prevent tenant's father) was cultivating more than one veli of land even after the crucial period. Consequent to that, he allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Rent Court and remanded the matter to the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent. Hence this revision by the landlord.

(3.) Mr. K. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner herein would attack the finding of the Tribunal below on the ground that the Tribunal below has erroneously found that Exs. B6 and B7 proved that the father of the present tenant had relinquished the excess lands even on the expiry of the fasli year 1366, i.e. the period commencing from 1st July, 1956 and ending with 30th June, 1957. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the entry in the adangal register that Rajangam was the cultivating tenant of the lands up to 30th August, 1957 will not clothe the present tenant with any right to claim the benefits of the Act, because that entry reveals that Rajangam continued to be in possession of the said land in excess of one veli even after 30th March, 1957.