Krishna Thevar vs Muthammal

Natesan, J.—This revision is preferred by the tenant against an order of the Rent Tribunal on an application filed by the landlord u/s 9(2) of

the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act (XXIV of 1956) for fixation of fair rent. The extent of the land leased to the tenant is 4

acres and 26 cents. Of this extent, it is stated, 10 cents are rocky. There is a coconut tope containing 75 coconut trees and there are also six

tamarind trees and two mango trees. An extent of one acre is said to have been cultivated originally with cotton and at the time of the enquiry

before the Revenue Court, plantains were being raised. The original contractual rate for the entire extent was Rs. 500. The Rent Court calculated

the total yield on the basis of the cultivation in fasli 1370 at Rs. 3,095. In this total, sum of Rs. 1,500 as yield from plantains which was being raised

on an extent of one acre went into the computation. Observing that plantains were cultivated there for the first time and that once earlier cotton had

been cultivated, the Revenue Court in assessing the fair rent excluded the income from plantains on the one acre and took into consideration the

normal income that could be obtained if that one acre was also cultivated with cotton. On this basis the normal estimated yield from the land was

fixed at Rs. 1,865 and the fair rent was settled at 33 1/2 percent. This rounded of works to Rs. 622. On appeal, the Rent Tribunal while fixing the

fair rent, took into consideration the yield from the plantains. There is a slight difference as to the income from the other crops but this was not the

subject of any complaint. For the plantains, the Tribunal held that there were six hundred plantain trees and the yield therefrom would be Rs. 1,200

at Rs. 2 per tree The total income was thus computed at Rs. 2,905 and the fair rent was settled at Rs. 970 that is at 33 1/3 per cent in a round

figure for the purpose of convenience.

In this revision which has been preferred by the tenant the principal contention raised is that the Tribunal erred in settling the fair rent on the basis

of the income from plantains. Learned Counsel contends that apart from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act now under consideration even

otherwise the Revenue Court has failed to appreciate that the evidence showed that the plantains begin to yield only at the end of two years. The

income that can begot from the plantains will be only after two years and not at the end of the first year itself as assumed. Learned Counsel submits

that apart from the illegality of it, grave injustice would be done to the tenant by including the income that can be derived in two year as a normal

income for one year. Obviously considering the difficulty of taking into the computation of fair rent, yield from plantains, sugarcane and similar

crops, Section 15 specifically exempted the land on which such crop is raised from the application of the Fair Rent Act. Section 15 exempting such

lands runs thus:

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any land during the period when such land is used for raising as main crop, sugarcane, plantain or betel vines or

any crop which does not give any yield for a continuous period of two years or more from the time of cultivation or to any contract merely for

collection or harvesting of the produce of any kind.

That being so, the Tribunal has gone wrong in calculating fair rent for the land under plantain cultivation In Civil Revision Petition No. 1668 of

1959, while considering how the fair rent must be assessed in respect of a holding when on a portion sugarcane a crop of the kind contemplated

u/s 15 was raised, Ramachandra Ayyar J., as he then was observed:

If sugarcane had been cultivated for the entire area of the land, the Respondent would not be entitled to have any fixation of fair rent. If on the

other hand sugarcane was cultivated in respect of a portion of the land alone, fair rent should be fixed only for the land on which sugarcane was not

cultivated, the landlord being left to recover the contractual rent in regard to the area over which sugarcane or similar crop was cultivated.

Now, in this case, I do not find any evidence that the raising of plantains on this one acre is casual. Admittedly, the plantain is a crop which

would stand at least for two years. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, submits that the land now under plantain cultivation may be left out

of the computation and he may be allowed to have his remedies in law, in respect of that one acre and recover contractual rent or such rent as he

may be able to recover in law without reference to the Fair Rent Act. When in fact plantains are being raised and is now the main crop on the

parcel and the evidence only shows that on an earlier fasli cotton was raised, it is neither fair nor convenient that the rent for the one acre must be

treated as one in which cotton is being raised and the fair rent fixed for that land also. I respectfully follow the principle enunciated by

Ramachandra Ayyar J., as he then was, referred above and hold that the proper thing in a case of this kind where in fact crop of the type

contemplated in Section 15 is being raised on a parcel of the lands leased is to leave out that parcel for the computation of the fair rent and fix the

fair rent in respect of the remaining area. The rent for the parcel thus left out will be outside the Fair Rent Act, and need not necessarily be the

portion of the contractual rent proportionate to the area. The rent of the parcel will depend on the relative fertility, facility for irrigation and similar

factors.

Counsel are agreed that the fair rent may be fixed for the remaining extent of 3 acres and 26 cents here itself and that it works out to Rs. 570 in

a round sum. Leaving the income of Rs. 1,200 from plantains we get for the total value of the normal gross produce on the remaining extent Rs.

1,705. Out of this 33 1/3 per cent would be Rs. 568 1/3 and the fair rent could be fixed at Rs. 570 as submitted. The order of the Rent Tribunal is

modified accordingly, the fair rent being fixed at the sum of Rs. 570 on an extent of 3 acres 26 cents. An extent of 1 acre under lease to the

Petitioner-tenant under plantain cultivation is exempted from the Fair Rent Act (XXIV of 1956). The revision is allowed as above indicated. There

will be no order as to costs.