RAGHUNATHA DESIKACHARIAR Vs. RANGASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit by a ryot contesting the right of the landholder to sell his holding under Section 112, Madras Act I of 1908, for arrears of rent.

(2.) It is not disputed that from 1919, or fasli 1329, the rent was enhanced by 2 annas in the rupee by mutual consent. Nor is it disputed that this enhancement was due to a rise in local prices and to repairs to the irrigation works. On the facts the landholder may or may not have had good grounds for a suit under Section 30 of the Act. But, could he, and this is the question, enhance the rent without a suit, and independently of the Act, by agreement with his tenant?

(3.) Section 24, marginally described as "Restriction on enhancement "runs" the rent of a ryot shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act," and then Section 30 provides for a suit to that end by the landholder. So far as we can discover from the Reports it has never been argued before a Bench, much less held, that Section 24 was otherwise than absolute and peremptory. It leaves no room for enhancement otherwise than as provided for by the Act, as for instance, by private contract.