Skip to content


Fischer Vs. Kamakshi Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad136
AppellantFischer
RespondentKamakshi Pillai
Cases ReferredFischer v. Naraynan Civil Revision. Petition No.
Excerpt:
rent recovery act (madras) - act viii of 1865, section 11--enhancement of rent--custom. - - 1. it is admitted that the garden crop in this case is the result of an improvement effected by the tenant in sinking a well. 27. the imposition of garden assessment is clearly an enhancement of the rent. 195 of 1895 (unreported). in that case, however, there is nothing to show that the well had been constructed after act viii of 1865 came into force prior to that act zamindars sometimes collected an enhanced rent on garden crop raised with the aid of wells constructed by the tenants, and a usage under which a zamindar made such collection might not be unreasonable......tenant per muttusami ayyar, j. venkatagiri raja v. pitchana i.l.r. 9 mad. 27. the imposition of garden assessment is clearly an enhancement of the rent. it. was, however, contended that the zamindar was, in accordance with the custom of the zamindari, entitled to the assessment claimed.2. the custom relied upon appears to have been an alleged custom of charging a varying assessment according to the kind of crop raised; such a custom would, if established, be valid, but it could not derogate from the rights secured to tenants by section 11 of the act 1865. the custom could only be upheld in so far as it might not conflict with the statute law. in other words, the landlord would be entitled to vary the rates according to the cultivation only in cases where the variation in the crop was.....
Judgment:

1. It is admitted that the garden crop in this case is the result of an improvement effected by the tenant in sinking a well. According to the law ( Section 11, Madras Act VIII of 1865) the landlord is precluded from. enhancing the rent on account of improvements made by the tenant per Muttusami Ayyar, J. Venkatagiri Raja v. Pitchana I.L.R. 9 Mad. 27. The imposition of garden assessment is clearly an enhancement of the rent. It. was, however, contended that the zamindar was, in accordance with the custom of the zamindari, entitled to the assessment claimed.

2. The custom relied upon appears to have been an alleged custom of charging a varying assessment according to the kind of crop raised; such a custom would, if established, be valid, but it could not derogate from the rights secured to tenants by Section 11 of the Act 1865. The custom could only be upheld in so far as it might not conflict with the Statute law. In other words, the landlord would be entitled to vary the rates according to the cultivation only in cases where the variation in the crop was not the result of improvements made by the tenant.

3. Our attention has been drawn to Fischer v. Naraynan Civil Revision. Petition No. 195 of 1895 (unreported). In that case, however, there is nothing to show that the well had been constructed after Act VIII of 1865 came into force Prior to that Act zamindars sometimes collected an enhanced rent on garden crop raised with the aid of wells constructed by the tenants, and a usage under which a zamindar made such collection might not be unreasonable. But such a usage cannot affect the present case where the improvement was effected in 1891.

4. In this view the second appeal fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //