NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. SANKARAN THARAKAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The first respondent in L. T. A. 419 of 1964 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Ottapalam is the revision petitioner. Against him the tenant had filed the petition for fixation of fair rent.
(2.) The property comprised in the petition is 2 acres and 21 cents of paddy land in S. No. 12/4 of Katukulam amsom. The property is double crop paddy land fetching, according to the tenant, an yield of 140 paras in Kanni and 50 paras in Makaram. In the counter, the landlord contended that the petition is not maintainable since the entire holding has not been shown in the petition; a portion of the property has been subleased by the tenant and the yield, according to the landlord, is 200 paras of paddy as per 60 nazhi para both in Kanni and Makaram. The contention was also raised that since Act 4 of 1961 has been struck down by the Supreme Court the petition filed under the said Act is not maintainable. The learned Land Tribunal on a consideration of all relevant points bearing on the matter has fixed fair rent at 125 paras of paddy in standard para payable in Kanni and Makaram in the ratio 6:4 with effect from May 1961. On appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in C. M. A. 113 of 1964, the order was modified so as to take effect from the date of the commencement of Act I of 1964 only.
(3.) The revision petitioner as stated already, was the first respondent before the Land Tribunal. The first respondent here was holding the property under the revision petitioner who is the kanomdar of the property and the second respondent was the jenmi. The third respondent was subsequently added as subtenant under the first respondent, and the fourth respondent was added as the next male member of the family of the 2nd respondent. The points pressed before us on behalf of the revision petitioner are:
(i) the petition is not maintainable since the entire holding has not been shown in the petition;
(ii) since a portion of the property has been subleased to the third respondent, the first respondent is not competent to apply for fixation of fair rent;
(iii) the petition having been filed under Act 4 of 1961 is not now maintainable since the said Act has been struck down;
(iv) the property would fetch 200 paras of paddy and the gross produce shown is incorrect; and
(v) even though petitions filed under Act 4 of 1961 are allowed to be received in accordance with S.132 of the present Act, interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal under the old Act cannot be revived.
These contentions were carefully examined by us and we are satisfied that none of them is tenable, especially in view of the concessions made by the present petitioner in the court below. He had agreed in writing on the back of the vakalath itself to fair rent being fixed under Schedule.3. It was also stated in writing that he had no oral evidence to be adduced. Interlocutory orders were also passed with his written consent. The scope of the present petition has been narrowed down considerably by the above concessions and admissions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.