Judgment.- This Revision Petition which is filed by the landlord arises out of an order in certain proceedings initiated by the respondent for the fixation of fair rent. The lease in favour of the respondent admittedly covered a larger extent of land than 6.66 acres. The benefit of fixation of fair rent under Act XXIV of 1956 is given only to tenants who cultivate less than that extent. Under section 14 (2) of the Act any cultivating tenant who owns or cultivates either as a tenant or as owner or as both an extent of land exceeding 6 2/3 acres but not exceeding 10 acres may by notice in writing addressed to the land owner relinquish at the end of the agricultural year ending 1957 the tenancy in respect of such portion of the land aforesaid as may be necessary to entitle him to all such benefits as a cultivating tenant under the Act, The respondent who had possession of more than 6.66 acres of land did not renounce or surrender possession of any land covered by the lease in excess of that extent within the agricultural year ending in 1957. It was only on 4th May, 1959, that the tenant intimated to the landlord setting out that he was surrendering then the excess lands. That would show that on the crucial date, namely, the ending of the agricultural year 1957 the tenant was in possession of more than 6.66 acres of land. That will not entitle him to apply for the fixation of fair rent. This was the view taken by the Rent Court of Chidambaram who dismissed his application for fixing a fair rent. The matter was taken up in appeal to the District Munsif (Rent Tribunal) of Chidambaram. The argument before the Appellate Authority was that notwithstanding the provisions of section 14 (2) it will be open to the tenant to surrender the excess land at any time and claim the benefits of the Act. In answer to that argument the landlord stated that even factually there was no surrender and that the notice Exhibit P-1 was only a make believe. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal ever applied his mind to the case at all. It has simply set aside the order of the Rent Court and remanded the petition. In answer to that argument the landlord stated that even factually there was no surrender and that the notice Exhibit P-1 was only a make believe. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal ever applied his mind to the case at all. It has simply set aside the order of the Rent Court and remanded the petition. It was the duty of the Tribunal first to ascertain whether the order of the Rent Court was right or not. It has been held that the power to remand cannot be exercised unless the order of the first Court has been first set aside. This the Rent Tribunal never attempted to do. On the other hand the Officer presiding over the Tribunal appears to have assumed that there can be surrender by a tenant applying for the fixation of fair rent at any time and in that view he has sent back the case to the Rent Court for investigation as to whether factually there was surrender or not. There was no warrant for the remand. It is plain on a reading of section 14 (2) that a tenant who has not surrendered the excess land before the ending of the agricultural year 1957 would not be entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent. The order of remand cannot be justified. In the circumstances of the case, I do not consider it necessary to send the case back to the Rent Tribunal. I am of opinion that the application by the tenant for fixation of fair rent was rightly rejected by the Rent Court. That order will be affirmed and that of the Appellate Authority set aside. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner. V.S. ----- Petition allowed.