PALLEELETATHIL KUNKAN 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 Tenants 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 Desa Maryada (usage of the land) mentioned in the contract should be made at the rate prevailing on the date of Ex. A. or a) the time of ejectment.

(3.) What is the amount claimable for improvements according to the contract ? Is it (a) two times the value of Kuzhikanam improvement plus twice that amount again for Vettu Kanarn or (b) twice the Kuzhikanam amount plus twice the Vettu Kanam amount or (c) two times the value of Kuzhikanam plus the value of the Kuzhikanam for Vettu Kanam (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 Randupur-ayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kanam (1908) I.L.R. 32 Madras 1 that " Section 19 precludes parties from contracting themselvas out 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 only says 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 enable 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 Vurma Valia Raja v. Ramunni (1892) 3 M.L.J. 51 and hold that the value at time of eviction has to be considered.