Skip to content


Muthukumara Padayachi Vs. Sambandam Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1960)1MLJ20
AppellantMuthukumara Padayachi
RespondentSambandam Pillai
Excerpt:
- - 1115 of 1958, ascertaining the arrears of rent payable by the petitioner-tenant at 137 kalams and 3 marakkals of paddy and 10 bundles of straw, and direction that, if the tenant failed to pay the same on or before 6th march, 1959 and to report the fact by the next day, reviction would follow. a determination of fair rent will hold good for five years after such determination......that the lower court was right in doing so.3. the next contention of mr. raman was that, in 1958, fair rent has been fixed at the rate 67 kalams of paddy in respect of the lands covered by the application and that, therefore, the lower court should retrospectively fix the rent for faslis 1366 and 1367 the at the rate of 67 kalams or paddy per year. no provision of law has been referred to me, making the determination of fair rent retrospective. a determination of fair rent will hold good for five years after such determination. but, there is no provision in the act to make it retrospective. the determination of fair rent in 1958 will be operative only thereafter, and it will not avail the petitioner in regard to the rent payable by him for faslis 1366 and 1367. in view of the fact that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramachandra Iyer, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam, in P. No. 1115 of 1958, ascertaining the arrears of rent payable by the petitioner-tenant at 137 kalams and 3 marakkals of paddy and 10 bundles of straw, and direction that, if the tenant failed to pay the same on or before 6th March, 1959 and to report the fact by the next day, reviction would follow. The order,on the face of it, is wrong. There is no ascertainment, in terms of cash, of the arrears of rent. Secondly, the direction has been made for the tenant to pay the landlord and not into Court. It has been held in this Court that such a direction is illegal. The order for eviction could not be sustained on that ground.

2. But, Mr. K. Raman, llearned Counsel for the petitioner, has taken another line of attack to the order of the lower Court. Originally, there was a contract of lease, Echibit P-1, in regard to the property, executed by the tenant in favour of the landholder on 1st June, 1955. Under that document, a fixed rent was payable. The case for the landlord was that the tenant was in arrears for faslis 1366 and 1367 and that about 137 kalams of paddy were due by way of arrears. The case for the tenant was that, although Exhibit P-1 stipulated a fixed rent, the parties subsequently agreed that the lease should be on the basis of a waram system and that he had delivered over the landlord's share of the paddy on the threshing floor at each harvest. This was rejected by the lower Court, and I am of opinion that the lower Court was right in doing so.

3. The next contention of Mr. Raman was that, in 1958, fair rent has been fixed at the rate 67 kalams of paddy in respect of the lands covered by the application and that, therefore, the lower Court should retrospectively fix the rent for faslis 1366 and 1367 the at the rate of 67 kalams or paddy per year. No provision of law has been referred to me, making the determination of fair rent retrospective. A determination of fair rent will hold good for five years after such determination. But, there is no provision in the Act to make it retrospective. The determination of fair rent in 1958 will be operative only thereafter, and it will not avail the petitioner in regard to the rent payable by him for faslis 1366 and 1367. In view of the fact that I have found that the order of eviction is opposed to law, the order of the lower Court will be set aside to that extent.

4. The finding that 137 kalams and 3 marakkals of paddy and 10 bundles of straw are the arrears due from the petitioner to the respondent is affirmed. But the lower Court will proceed to assess the value of that quantity of paddy and the 10 bundles of straw and fix a definite time, by which the amount has to be paid into Court, in default of payment of which eviction can be directed.

5. There will be no order as to costs.


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