Ananda and Another vs Madhava Rao and Others

T.C. Raghavan, J.—The interpretation of sub sections (1) and (7) of Section 3 of Madras Act XXIV of 1936 is involved in this Civil Revision Petition. The suit was for arrears of rent for 1958-59. During the pendency of the suit the defendant-tenants, who are the petitioners before me, filed Ext. B. 1, which is a certified copy of the order of the Rent Court, Kasargod dated 30th April 1960 fixing the fair rent of the plaint property at 46 muras and 15 seers of paddy and 1110 sheaves of straw per year. On this basis the defendants claimed that the landlord-plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree only for the fair rent and not on the basis of the contract. This plea was rejected by the lower court and the defendants have come up in revision.

The learned advocate of the petitioners has invited my attention to sub sections (1) and (7) of Section 3 of Madras Act XXIV of 1956. Sub-section (1) enacts that from the first day of October 1956, every cultivating tenant shall be bound to pay to the landowner and every landowner shall be entitled to collect from the cultivating tenant fair rent payable under the Act. Sub-section (7) enacts that subject to the provisions of Madras Act XXV of 1955, no landowner shall, after the commencement of the Act, claim or stipulate for payment of any amount by the cultivating tenant in excess of the fair rent. On the basis of these provisions the learned advocate of the petitioners contends that the landlords were entitled to collect only fair rent for the year 1958-59, though the fair rent happened to be fixed only at a subsequent date, viz., 30th April 1960. It is well-known that the normal rule is that a statute runs prospectively, unless there is indication in the statute itself to make it retrospective in effect. In the present statute there is no indication anywhere that any of its provisions has retrospective operation. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that in section 6 of the Act there is sufficient indication that the Legislature intended to make the provisions only prospective and not retrospective. Section 6 of the Act enacts, that, where in respect of any land fair rent has been determined under the Act, it shall continue in force for five years. This means that during those five years the landlord has no right to collect, and the tenant is not bound to pay, anything more than the fair rent. This again means that the fair rent fixed under the Act enures only for that particular period of five years and it does not enure for a period subsequent to it, nor a period prior to it. This, according to me, is sufficiently indicative that the fair rent fixed under the Act cannot relate to a period prior to such fixation.

On this question there is a decision of the Madras High Court in Muthukumara Padayachi Vs. Sambandam Pillai, wherein Ramachandra Iyer J. takes the same view. Moreover, in this case Ext. B1 says that the order shall take effect from the agricultural year 1959-60. In the face of this specific recital in the order of the Rent Court itself, I fail to see how the learned advocate of the petitioner can advance the contention that the fair rent fixed applies to a period prior to that date.

The Civil Revision Petition therefore has no merits and is dismissed with costs.