M. Rengaswami Iyer vs Sivasami

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—It is not quite clear as to how the District Munsif says that the judgment of this Court, exhibited as Ex. A-4 cannot

have any force. Apparently he has not understood it or is incapable of understanding it. Under Ex. A-4, the landlord was entitled to claim for the

back period as part of the arrears of rent to which he would be entitled by reason of Ex. A-4. In this Court, the Rent Court fixed a particular rent.

The Rent Tribunal reversed it, but on revision, the order of the Rent Court was restored. As the Rent Tribunal reduced the rent, an occasion arose

for the landlord to recover the difference. It is this which was sought in the present suit.

The landlord-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of such difference in rent for Faslis 1331 and thereafter. The argument was that under the Tamil

Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, if any fair rent has been fixed, it shall continue in force for five years. There is also a

provision that even during the said term of five years, both the cultivating tenant and the landlord could approach the Rent Court for refixation of

the fair rent so fixed under certain circumstances. The question for immediate consideration is as to what happens at the end of the period of five

years fixed under S. 6 as the period during which the fair rent would be in force when so fixed by the appropriate authority under the provisions of

the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. There is a lacuna in the Act. After the expiry of the period of five years, it

follows that until the fair rent is fixed either on the application of the tenant or the landlord as the case may be, the fair rent fixed already under the

provisions of the Act would be operative as such rent even after the expiry of the period of five years. It is left to the option of the tenant or the

landlord as the case may be to approach the statutory authority for refixation of the pair rent to his respective advantage, but until it is done that

rent would be the rent which the tenant would be obliged to pay to the landlord. In the light of the above interpretation of this Court of S.6 of the

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, and as the Court below has failed to understand the import of the judgment of

this Court, and as in the circumstances the plaintiff would be entitled to relief as admittedly the tenant has not paid the difference in rent for Faslis

1381 and thereafter, the dismissal of the suit is without jurisdiction. The judgment and decree of the lower court are therefore set aside and the

subject matter is remitted to the Court below for a retrial of the suit in the light of the observations made above. The civil revision petition is

accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.