JUDGMENT 1. We are of opinion that the contract mentioned in the first question which has been referred to us is not binding on the tenant if it is less favourable to him than Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and that the tenant is entitled to claim compensation according to the provisions of the Act. 2. As regards the 2nd question, we are of opinion that, having regard to the question which the court had consider in Randu purayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan (1908) I.L.R. 32 M. 1 there is no inconsistency between the Judgment in that case and the judgments in Kozhikot Sreemanavikraman v. Madathil Ananta Patter (1910) I.L.R. 34 M. 61 and Paru Amma v. Moothoran (1912) 22 M.L.J. 221 . We are not prepared to say that the two last mentioned cases were not rightly decided.