Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant, Raghutilaka Tirtha Sripadanagavaru Swamiji, in the Mysore High Court challenging the validity of S. 6 (2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (XIII of 1952) hereafter called the Act and the notification issued under the said section on 31-3-1952.

2. The appellant s case as set out in his writ petition before the High Court was that the impugned section as well as the notification issued under it infringed his fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f), 26, 31 and 31-A of the Constitution. This contention has been rejected by the High Court and it has been held that the section and the notification under challenge are valid and constitutional. The appellant then applied for a certificate from the High Court, both under Art. 132 and Art. 133 of the Constitution. The High Court granted him a certificate under Art. 133, but refused to certify the case under Art. 132. Thereafter the appellant applied to this Court for liberty to raise a question about the interpretation of the Constitution and permission has been accorded to the appellant accordingly. That is how the present appeal has come to this Court.

3. The appellant owns 6 acres and 30 ghuntas of garden land in village Muldagilu in Taluka Thirthahalli in the district of Shimoga. Respondent No. 3 Ramappa Gowda, is his tenant in respect of this land. A registered lease deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 3 by the appellant on 11-3-1943; under this document respondent No. 3 undertook to pay 821/2 maunds of area in addition to Rs. 17/12 in cash as rent per year. In 1955 respondent No. 3 filed an application before respondent No. 2, the Tehsildar of Thirthahalli, under S. 12 of the Act and claimed that the standard rent payable by him to the appellant should be fixed (Tenancy case of 85 of 1955-56). Meanwhile respondent No. 1, the Government of Mysore, had, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 6 of the Act, issued a notification No. R9-10720/L. S. 73-54-2 on March 28/29, 1955. This notification purported to fix the standard rent for lands of the category to which the appellant s land belongs at one-third of the produce. Feeling aggrieved by this notification the appellant filed the present writ petition in the High Court on 16-12-1955. His case was that S. 6 (2) as well as the notification issued under it were ultra vires, invalid and inoperative.

4. Before dealing with the contentions raised before us by Mr. Shukla on behalf of the appellant it would be necessary to consider very briefly the scheme of the Act. The Act has been passed by the Mysore Legislature because it was thought necessary to regulate the law which governs the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtenant thereto belonging to or occupied by agriculturists in the State of Mysore except Bellary District and to make provisions for certain other purposes appearing in the Act. That is the recital contained in the preamble to the Act. It would thus be seen that the primary object of the Act is to afford much needed relief to the agricultural tenants by regulating their relations with their landlords and in that respect the Act bears a very close resemblance to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, LXVII of 1948. Indeed, the material provisions of the Act with which we are concerned are substantially similar.

5. Chapter I of the Act deals with the preliminary topic of defining the relevant terms used in the Act. Chapter II contains general provisions regarding tenancies. Section 4 defines persons who are deemed to be tenants. Section 5 provides that no tenancy would be for less than five years. Section 6 deals with the maximum rent payable by the tenants. Section 8 provides for the calculation of rent payable in kind in the manner indicated b