Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal amount claimed by and decreed to him.
2. Under Section 3, Clause 11(a), of the Estates Land Act, rent includes for the purpose of Section 61 (among other sections) money recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent.' Under the 1st proviso to Section 73 of the Local Boards Act, a land-holder is entitled to recover from an intermediate land-holder the whole of the local cess paid in respect of the lands held by the intermediate land-holder (less certain deductions).
3. This is a suit to recover the amount of such a local cess and is brought by a landholder against an intermediate land-holder. Section 61 of the Estates Land Act says:
An arrear shall bear simple interest at the rate of one half per centum per mensem from the date on which the arrear fell due,' Section (JO says: An instalment of rent not paid on the day on which it falls due, becomes on the following day an arrear of rent.
4. Can the sum payable by the intermediate landlord under Section 73 of the Local Boards Act be called an 'arrear' of rent within the meaning of that word as used in Section 61 of the Estates Land Act? Is it an instalment of rent falling due on some date (section 60) so as to become an arrear on the following day? Does Section 3, Clause (11)(a), refer only to the moneys recoverable under any enactment by a land-bolder from a person who enjoys land for purposes of agriculture or does it refer generally to money recoverable under any enactment by any person from any other person as if it was rent? Does Section 74 of the Local Boards Act, which relates to the right of a land-holder or an intermediate land-holder to exercise in collecting cess the like powers as ho possesses in collecting rent, apply to the recovery of cess from an intermediate land-holder by a land-holder? As I feel much difficulty and diffidence in coming to a conclusion on these points owing to the respondent not being represented, I requested Mr. B. Narasimha Rao, Advocate, to act as amicus curi on behalf of the respondent to argue the case and he has kindly consented to do so. The case is adjourned for one week for further arguments.
5. This case coming on for final hearing today in pursuance of the above order the Court delivered the following
6. After hearing further arguments (I am much indebted to Mr. Narasimha Rao for appearing as amicus curi) and after further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Section 3, (11)(a) of the Estates Land Act refers only to money recoverable from a ryot by the land-holder.
7. The lower Court's decree is right and the revision petitions are dismissed.