Judgment :- 1. In this second appeal, on behalf of the defendant-appellant Mr. K.A. Muhammed learned counsel, contests the concurrent view of both the subordinate courts that the fair rent proceedings that took place between the appellant and the mortgagee are not binding on the plaintiff, the landlord of the property. 2. No doubt, it is seen that the appellant has taken proceedings for fixation of fair rent with the mortgagee as well as the present plaintiff, the landlord, on the party array. But ultimately it is seen on objection raised by the plaintiff in those proceedings that he is not a necessary party to those proceedings and that he has nothing to do with the present appellant, the Rent Court has passed an order dated 25-5-1955 holding "Kesavan Bhattathiripad is an unnecessary party. His name as R1 will be removed from the petition". This will clearly show that the plaintiff in this suit has been struck off from the array of parties in the fair rent application. 3. But notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Court at Ponnani where the matter was originally pending had struck off the name of the appellant from the array of parties still when the proceedings were transferred to the Rent Court at Manjeri that Court again issued notice to the plaintiff on the assumption that he is on the party array. But in response to such notice it is seen that the plaintiff again appeared by counsel and represented that his name has been struck off and it is also seen by the final order Ext. B-1 that there is a record made that the first respondent, namely, the present plaintiff has been declared as unnecessary party and it is after that the order is delivered. It is also mentioned in the body of the order itself in Para.2 that the landlord filed an application stating that he is an unnecessary party. Therefore, in view of these statements, it was contended by the present plaintiff that the Rent Court proceedings are not binding on him. 4. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of rent in particular for the year 1133, at the rate of 378 paras of paddy. Therefore, in view of these statements, it was contended by the present plaintiff that the Rent Court proceedings are not binding on him. 4. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of rent in particular for the year 1133, at the rate of 378 paras of paddy. The only defence so far as I could see raised by the appellant is that he is liable to pay only 258 paras of paddy namely, the fair rent fixed by the Rent Court. 5. Both the subordinate courts have held that the Fair Rent proceedings are not binding on the present plaintiff as he was not a party thereto and therefore decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. The same contention that was raised before the lower courts is also raised again by Mr. Muhammed, learned counsel for the appellant. In fact, the observations in my judgment in the decision in Krishnankutty Menon v. Chirukandan (1958 K.L.J. 36) to the effect that " 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" are cited as supporting his contention. The learned counsel contended that the plaintiff though he was not technically a party at the time of the fixation of the fair rent, still in the absence of any fraud or collusion between the appellant and the mortgagee, namely, the parties to the fair rent proceedings, the decision as regards the fixation of fair rent is binding on the present plaintiff also. 7. I am not able to accept this contention of Mr. Muhammed. In fact, prior to making the observation referred to above, I have already stated "Ordinarily a person who is not a party to a compromise or to a proceeding in court or otherwise will not be bound by those proceedings as such." 8. It is after making this observation that I have stated that in particular circumstances a party may be liable because of the scheme of the Malabar Tenancy Act. I had to consider in that case the right of an intermediary under S.32 of the said Act to have the rent payable by him to his landlord proportionately reduced in view of the fixation of fair rent for the land. I had to consider in that case the right of an intermediary under S.32 of the said Act to have the rent payable by him to his landlord proportionately reduced in view of the fixation of fair rent for the land. Therefore, these observations made on a different set of facts and circumstances cannot be availed of by the learned counsel for the appellant for purposes of this case and both the courts in my opinion have correctly understood the scope of my judgment and have held that that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 9. Though Mr. Muhammed contended that it is not his client's fault that the name of the plaintiff was struck off from the fair rent proceedings, ultimately the position is this that the fair rent was fixed in a proceeding between the present defendant and his mortgagee who let him in possession and in the absence of the landlord, the present plaintiff. In these circumstances, consistent with the principles of natural justice, a decision given in the absence of parties without having them even on the array of parties will not bind them. 10. In the circumstances, the view taken by both the courts is correct and the second appeal fails. There will be no order as to costs in the second appeal. Dismissed.