BALLELETATHIL KUNHAN NAMBIAR Vs. KOLANGARATH RAMAN NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions for consideration are: 1. Whether 2nd defendant is entitled to contract himself out of the Malabar Tenan s Improvements Act where the terms of the contract are more favourable to him than the provisions of the Act relating to improvements.

(2.) Whether the calculation of the value of improvements according to Dasameryada (usage of the land) mentioned in the contract should be made at the rate prevailing on date of Exhibit A or at the time of ejectment.

(3.) What is the amount claimable for improvements according to the contract? Is it (a) two times the value of Kozaikanom improvement plus twice that amount again for Vettukanom or (b) twice the Kuzhikanom amount plus twice the Vettukanom amount or (c) two times the value of Kuzhikanom puls the value of the Kuzhikanom for Vettukanom (that is thrice on the whole)? 2. We think that Section 19 of the Act does not prevent the tenant from claiming under a contract made even after the passing of the Act, if it, is more favourable to him than the Act. The general words in the short judgment in Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth kunhi Kannan 1 Ind. Cas. 207 : 32 M. 1 : 5 M.L.T. 277 : 18 M.L.J. 98 : 3 M.L.T. 291 that "Section 19 precludes parties from contracting themselves cut of the Act by any contract made after 1st January 1886" do not, when taken with the facts of that case and having regard to the language of Section 19, prevent the tenant from claiming according to the contract if it is more favourable. The section says only that "nothing in any contract made after the 1st day Of January 1886 shall take away or limit the right of a tenant to make improvements and to claim compensation" according to the Act, and not that nothing in any contract made after the 1st day of January 1886 shall oblige the landlord to pay more compensation than is claimable under the Act, nor does it say conversely that nothing in such a contract shall entitle the tenant to claim more compensation than is claimable under the Act. 3. On the 2nd question, we are bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Kerala Varmah Valia Raja v. Ramuni 3 M.L.J. 51 (F.B.) and bold that the value at the time of eviction has to be considered.