The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958, applies to determine the value of improvements and mesne profits for tenants, and such determination should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

K. Sankaran, C.J.

1. The additional 2nd plaintiff in O.S. 92/1116 on the file of the Kottayam District Court is the appellant. The final decree in that suit was passed by the High Court. Plaint items 2 to 5 & 9 to 11 were in the possession of defendants 17 to 24 on the strength of two sale deeds, Exts. B & E. By the final decree passed in the suit, both these sale deeds were set aside and the 2nd plaintiff was allowed to recover possession of these items from defendants 17 to 24 with mesne profits from 7-11-1118 onwards and on payment to the defendants the value of improvements, if any, effected by them subsequent to the date of the sale deeds. The value of such improvements as also the quantum of mesne profits were directed to be determined in execution. The Meenachil Sub-Court where the decree is being executed, issued a commission to report about the mesne profits payable to the 2nd plaintiff and the value of improvements effected by the defendants. The amounts payable under these two items were fixed by that court after considering the commission report and other material items of evidence. In the present appeal preferred by the 2nd plaintiff against that order, he has challenged the correctness of that order.

2. Even though detailed objections have been raised to the method adopted by the Commissioner in assessing the value of improvements under the various items and in fixing the quantum of mesne profits, the main point urged by the counsel for the appellant is that a fresh assessment of the value of improvements has become necessary in view of the coming into force of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 (Act XXIX of 1958). This Act came into force during the pendency of the present appeal and before the value of improvements payable to defendants 17 to 24 has been finally determined. Such final determination is to be made in accordance with the new law which has in the meanwhile come into force. The decision in Kunjukrishnan v. Krishna Pillai (1958K.L.T. 645) is in support of this view. If defendants 17 to 24 are entitled to the benefits of the new Act (Act XXIX of 1958), the value of improvements due to them has to be assessed afresh in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

3. The preamble to Act XXIX of 1958 states that payment of compensation for improvements made by tenants in the State of Kerala has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For the purpose of the Act, the expression 'tenant' has been defined in a very comprehensive manner. This definition as contained in clause (d) of S.2 is as follows:

"Tenant" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes

[i] a person who as lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee or sub-mortgagee or in good faith believing himself to be lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee or sub-mortgagee of land is in possession thereof;

[ii] a person who with the bona fide intention of attorning and paying a reasonable rent to the person entitled to cultivate or let waste land, but without the permission of such person, brings such land under cultivation and is in occupation thereof as cultivator; and

[iii] a person who comes into possession of land belonging to another person and makes improvements thereon in the bona fide belief that he is entitled to make such improvements."

Sub-clauses (i) & ('ii) taken together are by themselves wide enough to include all persons who have come into possession of land and are in occupation of the same with the bona fide intention of attorning to the real owner of the land. Persons falling under sub-clauses (i) & (ii) were included in the definition of the expression 'tenant' as contained in clause (d) of S.2 of the earlier Act also, i. e., the Travancore-Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956 (Act X of 1956). The legislature obviously wanted to amplify and enlarge the scope of this definition when that Act was repealed by enacting the new Act, Act XXIX of 1958. This object was achieved by adding sub