RAJAH KUMARA VENKATA PERUMAL RAJU DEVA MAHARAJULUNGARU MINOR BY GUARDIAN W A VARADACHARIAR Vs. RAMUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision is whether Section 13, Clause 3 of the Estates Land Act enables the tenant to claim exemption from liability to pay a higher rate of rent for crops raised with the help of improvements made at the tenant s sole expense where the improvements had been effected before the Act came into force and where there had been a contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant before the passing of the Act for the payment of such enhanced rent.

(2.) The facts found by the learned Judges are: (1) That the rent claimed by the Zamindar has been paid by the tenants for over 60 years, (2) that there was a valid contract to pay the rent which was legally enforceable under the provisions of the Rent Recovery Act, (3) that the improvements in respect of which the enhanced rent had been paid ever since 1846 were effected by the tenants. Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar was of opinion that in spite of these facts the landlord was not entitled to sue tor the rent at the rate paid ever since 1846 as Section 13, Clause 3 of the Estates Land Act was retrospective and prevented the landlord from claiming higher rent in consequence of improvements effected by the tenants even though such improvements have been effected before the passing of the Act and the rent claimed was legally recoverable under the Rent Recovery Act. Mr. Justice Napier took the opposite view and held that the section only applied to improvements made after the passing of the Act. The question resolves itself into whether Section 13, Clause 3 has retrospective operation. There is nothing in the wording of the section to indicate that the legislature intended it to be retrospective. Clause 3 runs as follows: "Notwithstanding any usage or contract to the contrary a ryot shall not by reason of making an improvement at his sole expense become liable to pay a higher rate of rent on account of any increase of production or of any change in the nature of the crop raised as a consequence of such improvement.

(3.) It would require very strong grounds for holding that the legislature intended to disturb vested rights which landlords had under valid and enforceable contracts. It is no doubt true that the Madras Estates Land Act was intended in a large measure to benefit tenants, but that is no ground for construing the Act on the hypothesis that in every case tenants were to have all the rights and landlords were only to be subject to all the liabilities incident to the ownership and possession of property.