Saraswathi Ammal vs Ponniah Thevar

Ratnam J.

This second appeal and civil revision petition arise out of Original Suit No. 188 of 160 of 1976 respectively on the file of the District Munsif,

Srivaikuntam The first suit namely, Original Suit No. l88 of 1976 was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,237-50P to wards arrears of lease for

two crops, namely, pisanam and kar 1975 while in Original Suit No. 160 of 1976 a claim was made for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,118.75p.

towards arrears of lease for Kar. 1975. There is no dispute that the lands in question of an extent of 1 acre and 13 cents belong to Saraswathi

Ammal, the Appellant in the second appeal and the Petitioner in the Civil revision petition and that that Respondent had been in enjoyment of those

lands as a tenant. He had agreed to measure kottahs of paddy per. kuruni per crop. Since June, 1970, the tenant had raised kodikal and plantain

crop in the lands in question without the consent of the landlady. Under those circumstances, Saraswathi Ammal claimed that she was entitled to

recover enhanced rent from the tenant in respect of his cultivation of kodikal and plaintain crops in the lands. The value of the kodikal and plantain

crops computed with reference to the prevailing price and the suits were laid for the recovery of the amounts as set out earlier.

The Respondent admitted that he had raised plantain crops or kodikal crops in the lands, but contended that his liability in the matter of payment

of rent was only six kottahs per crop every kuruni and that the landlady is not entitled to claim any thing more. The Respondent also expressed his

readiness and willingness to pay the rent at that rate for the crops raised by him.

On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif, found that the tenant was at liberty to raise any

crop which would be to his best advantage but that at the same time, he cannot be permitted to enrich himself at the expense of the landlady and,

therefore, the landlady is entitled to claim enhanced rent in respect of the cultivation of crops by the tenant different from what had been agreed to

be cultivated. In the view, the learned District, Munsif granted a decree or a sum of Rs. 4,237.50P. in Original Suit No. 188 of 1976 and a decree

for Rs. 1,118.75P. in Original Suit No. 160 of 1976. Aggrieved by this, the Respondent in this second and the civil revision petition preferred

Appeal Suit Nos. 147 and 146 of 1977 respectively to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tutioorin. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the

agreed rate of rent was only six kottahs of paddy per crop, that the Respondent was entitled to raise any crop he liked, but that as the rent had

been fixed at six kottahs of paddy per crop, the landlady was not entitled to recover anything more. In that view, the learned Subordinate Judge

modified the decrees in Original Suit Nos. 188 and 160 of 1976 respectively by reducing the amount payable by the Respondent herein to Rs.

2,400/- and Rs. 1,500/- respectively. Challenging the correctness of this, the landlady has come up before this Court.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the landlady is that in view of the admitted cultivation of kodikal or plantain crops by the

Respondent, the landlady is entitled to enhanced rent and the circumstance that there had been an earlier fixation of rent payable would not

disentitle the landlady from Claiming such enhanced rent, as the benefit reaped by the tenant should also be made available, at least in part, to the

landlady. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that having regard to the terms of the contract between the

parties, the landlady is not entitled to claim anything more than six kottahs of paddy per crop and no additional liability can be cast on the

Respondent in respect of that.

The controversy in this case thus centres round the question whether, having regard to the admitted raising of kodikal and plantain crops in the

lands of the landlady by the Respondent, he is liable to share that income with the landlady. Indeed, this is settled by two decisions of this Court.

The first is, Annavi Moopan v. Munia Moopan (1969) 1 M.L.J. 379. In that case also, there was a fixation of fair rent. But, subsequently, the

tenant raised sugar-cane crops without the permission of the landlord and declined to pay increased rent in respect of the use of the lands'' or

purposes of sugar cane cultivation. When the landlord sued tor recovering the amounts based on the estimated rent, the tenant pleaded that the

landlord was not entitled to anything more than the agreed rent. The trial Court took the view that in the absence of any fresh agreement between

the parties, the parties would be bound by the terms of the contract and that no enhanced rent can either be demanded or directed to be paid. On

revision to this Court, Ramapkasada Rao J., (as he then was) after referring to the principles applicable in such cases, held that it would be the

very negation of the rights of the landlord, if the tenant were allowed to continue to remain in possession of the holding and raise a main crop like a

sugar-cane to the detriment of the landlord and without his authority, and yet refuse a lawful demand for payment of increased rent by the landlord.

In doing so, the learned Judge relied upon an earlier reported decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 1894 of 1962 renderdd by Natfsan J., who

was also of the view that the Courts, in such circumstances, should consider what the fair rent for the land in question is. To similar effect is the

decision rendered by Raghavan J., in Thangayya Nadar v. Ulaganathan Pillai (1972) 2 M.L.J. 37 (S.N.) : Second Appeal No. 1320 of 1977,

dated 19th July 1972. There again, the learned Judge was of the view that where plantains and vegetables are allowed to be grown in lands, the

civil Court has jurisdiction to fix the fair rent. Though the Court below, in paragraph 10 of its judgment, had referred to Annavi Moopan v. Munia

Moopan (1969) 1 M.L.J 379 it was of the view that decision will apply only to cases where the rent payable by the tenant have not been fixed

under the agreement. This ground of distinction pointed out by the lower appellate Court is an obvious error, for even in the decision in Annavi

Moopan v. Munia Moopan (1969) 1 M.L.J 379 there was an earlier fixation of fair rent in supersession of the contract already entered into

between the parties. In other words the rights of parties were governed, though not by a contract, but by an order of Court and even in such a

case, this Court had held that the landlord would be entitled to enhanced rent. It is therefore, clear that the question of the landlady becoming

entitled to claim enhanced rent does not really depend upon the terms of the contract enured info between the parties, by really on the question

whether the tenant should not be permitted to make an unjust enrichment to the detriment of the landlord. On that basis, though in this case the rent

had been fixed at the time of the lease at 6 kottahs of paddy per kuruni pex crop, yet, in view of the admitted raising of kodikal and plantain crops

by the Respondent, the landlady would be undoubtedly entitled to realise a fair and a reasonable rent and not only the rent stipulated under the

terms of the contract between the parties. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, in error in modifying the decree granted by the trial Court.

Consequently the Second appeal and the civil revision petition are allowed. The judgments and decree granted by the lower appellate Court are

set aside, and those of the trial Court are restored. There will be no order as to casts both in the second appeal and the civil revision petiton.