KOCHU RABIA Vs. ABDURAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is whether Section 19 of the Malabar Compensation for tenants Improvements Act (Madras Act I of 1900) affects the validity of an agreement which was entered into prior to the 1st January 1886 and by which agreement the parties agreed that compensation for improvements should be paid to the tenant on a certain basis or method of calculation. The District Judge differing from the Subordinate Judge held that such an agreement though entered into before the 1st January 1886 was not binding on the tenant. The question turns upon the true construction of Section 19 of the Act which provides 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 for them in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The District Judge followed Kozhikot Sreemana Vikraman v. Modathil Ananta Patter (1911) I.L.R. 34 Mad., 61 a decision of Benson and Krishnaswami Ayyar, JJ. That decision has been followed by Benson and Sundaka Ayyar, JJ., in Paru Amma v. Moothoran .

(2.) The reasoning of these two decisions (if we have understood it aright) is that Section 19 contemplates only such agreements as limit the tenant s right to make improvements and to claim compensation therefore: that the section does not deal with a contract merely "regulating the rates of compensation" (see Kozhikot Sreemana Vikraman v. Modathil Ananta Patter (1911) I.L.R. 34 Mad., 61, or "limiting the amount of compensation to which the tenant is entitled" (see Paru Amma v. Moothoran in respect of improvements made by him and that the tenant may claim compensation either according to such a contract or under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, whichever is more favourable to him [Kozhikot Sreemana Vikraman v. Modathil Ananta Patter (1911) I.L.R. 34 Mad., 61)].

(3.) It has been argued before us that these two decisions are-inconsistent with the Full Bench decision in Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan (1909) I.L.R., 32 Mad., 1 (F.B.) in which case the question was whether improvements made after 1887 were to be governed by a deed of 1881 as regards the rate of compensation due to the tenant, and the Court held (1) that the validity of contracts made prior to the 1st January 1886 is not affected by Section 19 (whether the improvements were made before or after the 7th January 1887), and (2) that in the case of contracts made prior to the 1st January 1886, the rate of compensation is governed by the terms of the contract.