THAYYITA KALLIANI Vs. NHERAKKAYYIL KANARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basis of the decision of the lower Court is erroneous. THEre appears to be no reason why an agriculturist tenant should not get the benefit of Act, 4 of 1938, by paying the rent on the holding for Faslis 1346 and 1347, merely because there is a cotenant who is not an agriculturist. But there is an obstacle to the petitioner's success which was raised, though not decided by the lower Court. It appears that the landlord in this case is a melcharthdar and if so he is not a jenmi or intermediary and the rent cannot be scaled down as against him. THE petition is therefore dismissed with costs.