ORDER C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this CRP is whether the order of the learned District Munsiff amending the decree in O. S. 296 of 1954 on his file, is justified under the provisions of S.7(1) of Madras Act XXII of 1956 read with S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is the landlord of the suit items within the definition of that term as contained in S.3(19) of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The respondent had executed a Kana Kychit to the petitioner on 17-4-1946 agreeing to pay a rent of 78 Kozhikode paras of paddy in respect of the land taken on lease by him. As the rent was in arrears for 1129 M. E. the petitioner obtained a decree on 7-6-1955 for the said rent against the respondent in O. S. 296/1954 District Munsiff's Court Kozhikode. 3. The respondent had, in turn, subleased the property to one A Bapu on a rent of 85 paras of paddy. The said Bapu filed F. R. P. 38/1954 in the Rent Court for fixing the fair-rent of the property and the Rent Court fixed the rent at 87 Palghat paras and 21/2- Edangalis of paddy. Not being satisfied with the order of Rent Court, Bapu filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in CMA 119/1955. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the respondent and his subtenant entered into a compromise based upon the report of the commissioner and the fair rent was fixed at a much lower figure namely, 36 Palghat Paras and 41/2 Edangalies of paddy. 4. The order of the Rent Court is Ext. A1, and the report of the commissioner on the basis of which a compromise was arrived at in CMA 119/1955, is Ext. A2. The Appellate order of the learned Subordinate Judge is Ext. A3. 5. In consequence of the reduction in rent payable to him by his subtenant as evidenced by Ext. A3, the respondent filed the present application I. A. 3053/1956 before the learned District Munsiff under S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act read with S.7(1) of Madras Act XXII of 1956, for amending the decree passed against him in O. S. 296/1954. 6. The application was opposed by the petitioner landlord on the ground that the proceedings between the respondent and his subtenant covered by Ext. 6. The application was opposed by the petitioner landlord on the ground that the proceedings between the respondent and his subtenant covered by Ext. A1 to A3 do not bind him. He also contended that the relief under S.32 can be given only when the respondent himself has taken the necessary steps before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent. He also challenged the proceedings, Ext. A1 to A3 as being collusive and brought with the intention of defrauding his rights. There was also a contention raised that what is paid by the respondent to the petitioner is only Michavaram and as such, S.32 does not apply. 7. The learned District Munsiff has negatived all these contentions and amended the decree in accordance with the provisions of S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. 8. Sri. P. S. Narayanan Nambudiri, learned counsel for the petitioner landlord, has raised the same contentions before me. On the other hand, Mr. P. Govinda Menon, learned counsel for the respondent tenant, supports the finding of the trial court on all points. Learned counsel also brought to my notice that the petitioner landlord was also a party in the fair rent application before the Rent Court as 2nd respondent and that he never took any part in the proceedings and, therefore, it is not open to him to contend that these proceedings are not binding on him. 9. Before considering the contentions of the learned counsel, it must be stated at the outset that there is no dispute that the amendment ordered by the lower Court is in accordance with the provisions of S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act provided the said Section applies and the respondent has a right to get the decree amended under S.7(1) of the 1956 Act. 10. It is seen from Exts. A1 to A3 that the petitioner before me, the landlord, was also a party as the 2nd respondent in F. R. P. 38/1954. It is also seen from Ext. Al that the present respondent contested the said application and also definitely stated in his counter statement that if the rent is to be reduced at the instance of his subtenant, Bapu, there must be a proportionate reduction in the rent payable by him to his landlord who was the 2nd respondent therein. It is also seen from Ext. Al that the present respondent contested the said application and also definitely stated in his counter statement that if the rent is to be reduced at the instance of his subtenant, Bapu, there must be a proportionate reduction in the rent payable by him to his landlord who was the 2nd respondent therein. It is also seen that the petitioner filed a counter statement to the effect that Bappu was not his tenant and that no reduction should be made in the rent payable to him by the 1st respondent therein. 11. It is also seen that the present petitioner and the respondent, who were respondents 1 and 2 in the fair rent proceedings, did not file any objection to the report of the Special Revenue Inspector regarding the income of the land and they did not also take any further part in the final stage of those proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that those proceedings will not in any way bind him. The petitioner know full well that his tenant, the respondent was also asking for relief as against the petitioner herein, in case, there is a reduction of rent at the instance of Bappu. The petitioner took, also an objection in those proceedings that there can be no reduction of rent so far as he is concerned. Knowing full well that any fixation of fair rent will affect his interest in turn, if he did not take part in those proceedings he has only to blame himself. 12. In the appellate court, no doubt, it is seen that Bappu did not make the petitioner a party. He made only the respondent before me as a party respondent in the appeal. It is seen that a commissioner was appointed in the appellate stage and he, after giving notice to the parties and after inspecting the property, submitted the report, Ext. A2, working out the figures regarding the area, the nature of the crops,yield etc., and fixed the fair rent at 36 Palghat Paras and 41/2 Edangalis of paddy. That report was accepted by both parties in the appeal and they agreed to the fixation by the appellate court of the fair rent arrived at by the commissioner. In accordance with the said agreement, the learned Subordinate Judge passed the appellate order, Ext. A3. 13. That report was accepted by both parties in the appeal and they agreed to the fixation by the appellate court of the fair rent arrived at by the commissioner. In accordance with the said agreement, the learned Subordinate Judge passed the appellate order, Ext. A3. 13. Though an allegation of collusion and fraud in arriving at this compromise before the appellate court, was made by the present petitioner, he was not able to substantiate the same and the learned District Munsiff has held against him on this point. Nor am I satisfied that there is any basis for such an allegation. The petitioner, inspite of his being a party before the Rent Court did not to choose to take part in the proceedings. He was prepared to take the consequences, whatever it be, of the decision of the Rent Court. He must have known that the party aggrieved by that order has a right of challenging it in appeal under S.17 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. Ordinarily, a person who is not a party to a compromise or to a proceedings in court or otherwise, will not be bound by those proceedings, as such. But I am satisfied, as will be indicated below that the fixation of fair rent for a holding, in the absence of fraud or collusion, will bind all persons interested in the land, though they are not directly parties to those proceedings. This aspect will be considered later in the judgment when the scheme of the Act is being dealt with. The appellate proceedings show that there was another commissioner appointed to go into these matters and his proceedings, Ext. A2 clearly show that he has gone into this matter as fully as possible and arrived at the conclusion about the fair rent. Evidently, the parties in the appeal must have thought that it is futile to fight the matter further and so agreed to adopt the commissioner's report ,Ext. A2. I am not satisfied that there was any fraud or collusion in those proceedings as between the respondent herein and his subtenant, Bapu. Therefore, those proceedings will be binding on the petitioner especially when he has not been able to establish his allegation of fraud and collusion. 14. A2. I am not satisfied that there was any fraud or collusion in those proceedings as between the respondent herein and his subtenant, Bapu. Therefore, those proceedings will be binding on the petitioner especially when he has not been able to establish his allegation of fraud and collusion. 14. Then the question arises whether the respondent was entitled to invoke the benefit of S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act read with S.7(1) of Madras Act XXII of 1956 on the ground that the rent payable to him by his subtenant has been reduced in the fair rent proceedings covered by Exts. A1 to A3. 15. That the respondent is an intermediary within the meaning of S.3(12) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, cannot be seriously disputed. He is not a Jenmi and though he was entitled to possession, he has transferred such possession to his subtenant, Bapu. 'Fair Rent' under S.3(7) is rent payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II. 'Tenant' under S.3(27) includes an intermediary, a Kanomdar etc. The Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1951 -- Madras Act XXXIII of 1951 -- effected several changes regarding the definition of normal produce, gross produce, net produce etc. and also provided for appointment of 'Rent Settlement Authority'. S.13 of the said Act introduced sections 9A to 9H after S.9 of the principal Act. S.9C provided for the determination by the 'Rent Settlement Authority' of the fair rent payable under sections 5 to 7 and 9 to 9B and other incidental matters. S.9D provided for a right of appeal to the Authority mentioned therein against the orders of the 'Rent Settlement Authority'. S.9H provided for the preparation of Record of Rights in respect of every holding, showing rights of the Jenmi, rights of the intermediary or intermediaries, if any, the rights of the cultivating tenant or tenants and other particulars. S.28 of the said Amendment Act introduced S.32A in the principal Act as follows : "32A. Rediction in the rent payable by intermediaries. S.28 of the said Amendment Act introduced S.32A in the principal Act as follows : "32A. Rediction in the rent payable by intermediaries. -Where, by the operation of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1951, an intermediary becomes entitled to receive from his tenant by way of rent less than what he would have been otherwise entitled to receive, and the rent which the intermediary has to pay to his landlord under this Act, as amended by the Act aforesaid exceeds one-half of the reduced rent which the intermediary become entitled to receive from his tenant, the rent payable by the intermediary to his landlord shall be reduced in the same proportion as the reduced rent aforesaid bears to the rent which the intermediary would have been entitled to receive from his tenant but for the operation of the Amending Act aforesaid: Provided that the reduced rent payable to the landlord shall not be less than one-half of the reduced rent received by the intermediary from his tenant". It may be stated that this S.32A corresponds to the present S.32 after renumbering. 16. Another S.32B was also added giving a right to a tenant holding under an intermediary to apply for the sale of the right of the intermediary who has committed default in payment of the rents due by him to his landlord. This S.32B is the present S.33 after renumbering. It will be seen" that for the first time the 1951 Amendment Act gave a right to an intermediary to proportionately reduce the rent payable by him to his landlord in accordance with the provisions of S.32A. 17. Though elaborate rules were framed in the matter of fixation of fair rent in 1951 in accordance with the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1951, it is unnecessary to consider those rules because the 1954 Amendment has made further modifications and fresh rules have been framed in 1954. 18. The Malabar tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1954 -- Madras Act VII of 1954 -- made some further alterations in the Act. By S.3 of the said Act the words 'Rent Court' were substituted for the original words 'Rent Settlement Authority'. Further, 'Fair Rent' was denned as 'the rent payable in accordance (with the provisions of Chapter II'. S.9 of the said Act substituted for the old S.9C a new Section and also introduced a new S.9CC. By S.3 of the said Act the words 'Rent Court' were substituted for the original words 'Rent Settlement Authority'. Further, 'Fair Rent' was denned as 'the rent payable in accordance (with the provisions of Chapter II'. S.9 of the said Act substituted for the old S.9C a new Section and also introduced a new S.9CC. New S.9C authorised the State Government to constitute a Rent Court. The new S.9CC provided for the determination by the Rent Court of the Fair Rent payable in respect of any land when a dispute arises as to the amount of fair rent. S.17 substituted the old S.28 by a new S.28 under which every cultivating tenant of a holding other than a kanomdar or customary Verumpattomdar etc. etc., were bound to pay to his landlord rent in accordance with clauses (a) to (d) and the proviso. 19. Then comes the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956 -- Madras Act XXII of 1956 -- S.3 of the Amendment Act provided for the inclusion in the term 'tenant' in S.16, a Kanomdar etc. S.4 of the Amendment Act provided also for the inclusion in S.32 of the expression 'or the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1954' and also for certain other consequential amendments. Therefore, S.32 will take in also the Amendment Act of 1954. 20. S.7 of the Amendment Act was as follows: "7 (1) Consequential provisions.-Where before the commencement of this Act any Court has passed a decree for rent against, any tenant and a Rent Court has subsequently fixed fair rent under the provisions of the principal Act, apply to the Court which passed the decree to amend the decree so as to give effect to the order of the Rent Court fixing fair rent and if as a consequence of such amendment, the decree is fully satisfied by giving credit to the payment already made, satisfaction of the decree shall be entered and only such amounts as may be outstanding after the decree has been so amended shall be recoverable from the tenant. (2) Where before the commencement of this Act any Rent Court has fixed fair rent, the Rent Court shall on application by the tenant within three months of such commencement amend the order fixing fair rent by giving effect to the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act and the principal Act as amended by this Act shall also apply to petitions, appeals and other proceedings pending at such commencement". It will be seen that the preamble to Madras Act XXII of 1956 states that the amendment is necessitated in order to clarify the intendment of the Legislature in regard to some of the provisions of Act VII of 1954 and Act XXXIII of 1951 and for the protection conferred on the tenantry under Act VII of 1954. It will be seen that the provisions made under the 1951 Act introducing S.9H for preparation of a Record of Rights was deleted by S.12 of the 1954 Amendment Act. 21. Fresh rules also have been framed under the 1954 Act for determination of fair rent. The several matters to be mentioned in an application for fixation of fair rent are contained in rule 10 of the Malabar Tenancy (Determination of Fair Rent) Rules 1954. Some of the particulars to be mentioned are about the name of the land, the quality of the land, extent, boundaries. Survey Number, assessment etc. etc., and also the name of the applicant with a description as to whether he is the tenant or the landlord. There are also several other particulars to be mentioned in that application and they are stated very clearly in the other sub-clauses of rule 10. Rule 6 provides for the several particulars to be mentioned in the order of the Rent Court. In particular clause (1) of rule 6 provides that the order should specify 'the fair rent payable'. 22. It will be seen that the 1951 rules framed under the Act as amended by the 1951 Act provided for a very elaborate enquiry in the matter of fixation of fair rent. That is understandable by virtue of S.9H introduced by S.13 of the 1951 Amendment Act. S.9H, as already indicated, provided for the Rent Settlement Authority preparing a Record of Rights in respect of every holding for which fair rent is fixed showing the several matters mentioned under sub-clauses 1 to 4 of S.9H. That is understandable by virtue of S.9H introduced by S.13 of the 1951 Amendment Act. S.9H, as already indicated, provided for the Rent Settlement Authority preparing a Record of Rights in respect of every holding for which fair rent is fixed showing the several matters mentioned under sub-clauses 1 to 4 of S.9H. But the 1954 Act repealed S.9H and also constituted Rent Courts for fixation of fair-rent. The 1954 Act also amended S.3 of the Malabar Tenancy Act in respect of the definition of fair rent as the rent payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II. Chapter II, it will be seen, indicates the manner of arriving at the fair rent. 23. After the simplification of the procedure relating to the fixation of fair rent, it will be seen that what is fixed as fair rent is for the land as such and not for individual tenants or landlords. Even if the property changes hands, the fair rent fixed under S.16 will be binding on all parties who acquire an interest in the land. 24. It will be noted that under S.16 the proceedings must be started either by 'the tenant' or 'the landlord'. This is quite understandable, because S.16 contemplated a dispute having been raised and envisages an application at the instance of the tenant who so raises the dispute. 25. S.32 is really, in my view, a corollary naturally flowing from the effect of a decision under S.16. Once we proceed on the basis that the fixation of fair rent is for a holding and a landlord is not entitled to collect more than the fair rent as per the provisions of Chapter II, it will be really doing injustice to the provisions of this Act if that fixation of fair rent does not also have the effect of making necessary alterations in the contractual relationship of the various other parties who stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant or intermediary. In fact, S.32 is a special provision enabling an intermediary, like the respondent before me, to have the rent payable by him to his landlord proportionately reduced in view of the fixation of Fair Rent for the land S.32 does not contemplate any independent proceedings being taken by an intermediary against his immediate landlord for further fixation of Fair Rent. In fact, S.32 is a special provision enabling an intermediary, like the respondent before me, to have the rent payable by him to his landlord proportionately reduced in view of the fixation of Fair Rent for the land S.32 does not contemplate any independent proceedings being taken by an intermediary against his immediate landlord for further fixation of Fair Rent. In fact, such a proceeding will serve no purpose, because the same Rent Court, which fixed the fair rent for the holding in another proceedings, is not likely to fix any other rate as the fair rent for the same holding. In fact, there cannot be a fixation of two Fair Rents for one and the same holding. In such circumstances, to insist upon a separate application by the intermediary once again before the Rent Court, will only be an empty formality. In fact, the amendment introduced in S.32 by the 1956 Act takes in also the 1954 Amendment Act and an intermediary is entitled to take the full benefit of any reduction in rent effected by the operation of the 1951 or 1954 Acts. 26. Further, S.32 as amended by the 1956 Act, in my opinion, is quite clear. All that is necessary for that section to come into play is that the intermediary has become entitled to receive from his tenant a lesser rent and that is because of the operation of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1951 or the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1954. In this case, the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act as amended by the 1954 Act were put in force by the tenant of the Respondent and Fair Rent was fixed by the Rent Court, and S.32 automatically comes into play in favour of the intermediary, without anything further having to be done by him. 27. Provided the fair rent proceedings are not in any way collusive or fraudulent and they are arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in my view, those proceedings will bind the landlord and the intermediary and the latter will be entitled to automatically claim the benefit under S.32of the Act. 28. S.7 of the 1956 Amendment Act, only extend the right to cases where a decree had been passed. In this case, the decree was passed on 7-6-1955 before the coming into force of the 1956 Amendment namely, 27th October 1956. 28. S.7 of the 1956 Amendment Act, only extend the right to cases where a decree had been passed. In this case, the decree was passed on 7-6-1955 before the coming into force of the 1956 Amendment namely, 27th October 1956. S.7(1) directly applies to the proceedings before me. 29. But for the provisions made in S.7(1) of the Act of 1956 the provisions of S.32 of the Act by itself will not help the intermediary. He will be bound by the decree of court and will have to pay the full amount decreed against him. It is really to afford relief in such cases, that S.7 of the 1956 Act was enacted. The preamble to the said Act has been already set out. Madras Act XXII of 1956 was enacted to see that the protection conferred on the tenantry under Madras Acts XXXIII of 1951 and VII of 1954 is not lost. 30. Further from the expression used in S.7(1) 'any tenant', to my mind, it appears that 'any tenant' will not necessarily be 'the tenant' who initiated the Fair Rent proceedings in a rent Court. To invoke the provisions of S.7, all that is necessary is that a decree for rent should have been passed against any tenant and a Rent Court fixes subsequently Fair Rent under the principal Act. In this context, the wording in S.7(2) may also be considered. S.7(1) deals with decrees of court passed before the Amendment Act and S.7(2) deals with fixation of Fair Rent by Rent Court, before the Act came into force. Under sub-section 2 of S.7, the right to apply is given to 'the tenant. In as-much as it refers to proceedings before Rent Court, the expression 'the tenant' can and must necessarily refer only to the tenant who initiated the proceedings or at any rate was a party in these proceedings. 31. The argument that the Respondent is a Kanomdar does not appeal to me, as the definition of 'Tenant' under S.3(27) takes in an intermediary and a Kanomdar also. S.3(19) also shows that a person who is entitled to get from a tenant, rent or Michavaram is a 'Landlord'. Further S.3 of the Madras Act XXII of 1956 specifically amended S.16 of Malabar Tenancy Act so as to take in a Kanomdar also and gives him a right to apply for fixation of Fair Rent. 32. S.3(19) also shows that a person who is entitled to get from a tenant, rent or Michavaram is a 'Landlord'. Further S.3 of the Madras Act XXII of 1956 specifically amended S.16 of Malabar Tenancy Act so as to take in a Kanomdar also and gives him a right to apply for fixation of Fair Rent. 32. From the above discussion, it follows that the Respondent was entitled to apply for amendment of the decree under S.7(1) of the 1956 Amendment Act, read with S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act and the lower court acted within its jurisdiction in amending the decree. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.