Full Judgment
M.A. Ansari, C.J.
1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, and had claimed to recover Rs. 420/-, being the excess amount, that had been deposited in O. S. 269/51, in order to get stayed the proceedings for eviction, with arrears of rent claimed to be due from 1124. Several defences had been taken; one, about the suit being not maintainable, the next, about it being barred by limitation, and the third about the landlord's having appropriated the balance towards what was due to them on account of arrears of rent.
The Court has held the suit to be maintainable, the claim not to be barred by limitation, and had decreed Rs. 91/-, after having held respondents entitled to appropriate sums towards what was flue. The short point taken in the revision petition is that the rent-note having stated the money value of what was payable as rent, in kind, larger sums cannot be appropriated as the arrears in money of such rent. For deciding the argument, part of the document is important, and, what is relevant reads as follows:
'I have taken the schedule properties belonging to you in jenm find which are in your possession under the kychit for one year with the liability to pay per annum Rs. 105/- one rupee for plaintain, 400 cadjans Rs. 4, for 500 arecanuts Rs 3-12-0 together with 200 madals. I shall pay the said sum of Rs. 105/-, within one year from this date as monthly instalments and one rupee forplaintain during the Ramzan fasting period and 400 cadjans, 500 arecanuts and 200 madals by next month of Kumbham and I shall take a voucher ........ ..'
2. The petitioner's learned Advocate has argued that the lower court has erred in permitting the landlord to deduct larger amounts for the aforesaid rents in kind, as the valuations in the note were binding, and nothing larger can be allowed. In support of this argument, he relied on Raman Kunhappu v. Ali Ahamed Muhammed, 1957 Ker LT 265: (AIR 1957 Kerala 80) where it was held that the money value was not mentioned as the equivalent of the commodity merely for purposes of stamp duty, and must be taken to be a contemporaneous estimate in terms of money for purpose of realisation, should there happen to be a default.
Rajamannar, G. J., had taken a different view in Krishna Bhatta v. Narayana Achary, AIR 1949 Mad 618 and has held that the lessor in the case was entitled to the value of payable cashewnuts in accordance with the prevailing market rate, though the price of the cashewnuts prevailing at the date of execution of the mulgenichit be mentioned. The same view had been taken in Rangaswamy Iyer v. Narayanan. Unni, 23 Cochin 254 where it was hold that the value of paddy and other articles, payable to the landlord by the tenant and allowed to fall into arrears when sued for, should be fixed according to the rate prevailing on the date of suit, and not according to the rate fixed in the document creating the tenancy.
Similar view had been taken in Sarat Chandra Roy v. Abbas Ali Mondal, 41. Ind Cas 833: (AIR 1917 Cal 113) where it was held that the tenant bad not the option, under the terms of the Patta, either to deliver the paddy or to pay the amount mentioned therein as its price, but he was liable, in default of delivering the paddy, to pay its market price. Further, S. 50 of the Malabar Tenancy Act provides for the payment of rent in kind according to the market rate published under the section. It is thus clear that the lower court has not erred in allowing the landlords the right to deduct the value of the rent in kind at a rate different to what has been stated in the rent-note.
But it has certainly erred in failing to determine the market rates of the commodities on the dates they should be valued under the section and allow deduction at that rate, I, therefore, allow the revision petition, vacate the order, but vary only the conclusion of the trial court in paragraph 17 of the judgment, directing the court to allow deductions to the landlord on account of the rents in kind, only at the market rates of those commodities on the dates such rents in kind had become due. The aforesaid market rates would be determined, and amounts so found would be deductible from the sum sued by the revision petitioner, the rest being decreed.
The revision petition is accordingly allowed,and the case is remanded; and the costs will abidethe final result.