Rent Court ordering on preliminary point.

This Revision Petition raises the question whether a landlord would be entitled to take advantage of the provisions of the Madras Fair Rent Act (XXIV of 1956) (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), and institute proceedings for fixation of a fair rent against a cultivating tenant who owns or enjoys as a tenant lands exceeding 6 2/3 acres. The petitioner obtained a lease for a period of three years from the year 1953, of an extent of 19.68 acres of lands which were partly garden lands and partly dry lands with coconut trees from the owner, one Palani Chettiar. The rent reserved under the lease was Rs. 625 per annum.

Although the period of the lease had expired, the petitioner continued in possession of the properties, claiming to be a cultivating tenant entitled to protection under the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955. Palani Chettiar sold the lands to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 16,000. Soon after the purchase, the respondent filed a petition before the Rent Court (Tahsildar) at Pollachi under sections 3 and 9 of the Fair Rent Act for fixing a fair rent which, according to him, would be Rs. 3,416 per year. The tenant resisted the application on several grounds. One of the grounds taken, preliminary in nature, related to the objection of the tenant that the Rent Court had no jurisdiction to fix a fair rent, as the tenant was expressly excluded from the ambit of the Fair Rent Act by section 14 thereof. The Rent Court rejected the plea. On appeal, the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif), Udumalpet, upheld that view. The appellate authority also held that the appeal before it was incompetent, as a determination of the Rent Court on a preliminary issue would not amount to a decision, which alone would be subject to an appeal. The correctness of the decision is challenged in revision.

The question whether, notwithstanding the fact that a cultivating tenant either owns or cultivates as tenant or owner or both, a greater extent of land than 6 2/3 acres, can be proceeded against at the instance of a landowner for fixation of a fair rent under the provisions of the Act, depends on the construction of section 14. That section runs:-

14. (1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or owner or as both, an extent of land in excess of one veli (6 2/3 acres) of wet land.

(2) Any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or as owner or as both, an extent of land exceeding that specified in sub-section (1) but not exceeding 10 acres of wet land may, by notice in writing addressed to the landowner, relinquish at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the tenancy, in respect of such portion of the land aforesaid, as may be necessary to entitle him to all the benefits of a cultivating tenant under this Act. Such cultivating tenant shall be entitled to all the benefits of this Act till the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and shall thereafter be entitled to all the rights of a cultivating tenant under this Act only on such relinquishment.

(3) (Omitted as unnecessary)".

The provisions of the section are a little obscure: it is not clear from sub-section (1) whether the Legislature intended that a tenant owning or cultivating more than 6| acres of land was outside the Act altogether or what was intended was merely that he could not take advantage of the Act ; that is to say, whether section 14 (1) prevented both the landlord and tenant from applying for fixation of a fair rent in a case where the latter owned or cultivated land in excess of 6| acres, or whether it had the effect of preventing only the tenant from so doing, the landlord’s right being unfettered in that respect. If the former view were to be accepted, it would undoubtedly lead to inconvenient or unjust results.

The Act is in pari materia with the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955. It is part of a scheme of legislation for b