( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 312/84 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money from the defendants under an equitable mortgage claiming interest at the contract rate and costs. The contract rate is 9. 5 per cent over and above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to a minimum of 18. 5 per cent with quarterly rests. The defendants contended that the rate of interest is penal and usurious. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the rate of interest is penal and usurious and reduced it to 12 1/2 per cent per annum simple interest and passed a preliminary decree granting four months time for redemption. The plaintiff filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court reducing the rate of interest.

( 3 ) IN this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that subsequent to the insertion of Sec. 21-A of the Banking Regulation act, 1949, it is not permissible for the court to reopen the interest and reduce it. Sec. 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act reads as follows :"notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans act, 1918 (10 of 1918) or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any Court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive. "

( 4 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Yogendranath Raj vs. S. B. I. has considered the effect of Sec. 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In that case the borrower contended that he was an agriculturist as he had raised a grape garden. One of the questions which arose, for consideration in that case was wbetber the raising of a grape garden comes within the scope of agriculture . The Division Bench held that horticulture* includes the raising of grape garden as well and therefore horticulturist is included within the meaning of the expression agriculturist occurring in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, added by the Madras (Amendment) Act, 1936. It may be noted that the Madras amendment introduced a proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of the usurious Loans Act which is as follows : "provided that in the case of loans to agriculturists, if compound interest is charged, the Court shall presume that the interest is excessive". . The Division Bench held that having regard to the object and the purpose underlying the Usurious Loans Act and the Madras Amendment thereto, the court should be inclined to sustain and continue the said relief, unless the statute says to the contrary, either expressly or by necessary implication. In that case it was held that the interest on the debt advanced by the plaintiff bank to the 1st defendant was subject to the liability or obligation of being scaled down in accordance with the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, as amended by the Madras (Amendment) Act and that the said right cannot be taken away.

( 5 ) IN the present case, the 2nd defendant did not contend that he is an sgriculturist. His only contention is that the rate of interest is penal and usurious. It is admitted that the 2nd defendant is a business man and the debt is for a commercial purpose. Therefore, the question whether the interest has to be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of the agriculturists Relief Act or the Madras Amendment to the Usurious loans Act does not arise for consideration in this matter.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents-defendants contended that even subsequent to the enactment of Sec. 21-A of the Banking regulation Act, in several decisions of this Court interest has been reduced under the Usurious Loans Act. He has referred to the decisions of two learned judges in D. Venkanna vs. Andhra Bank and M. S. Suryanarayana Iyer vs. Syndicate Bank, Nelhre. In both thes