Judgment:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner herein under section 9 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ (Payment of Fair Rent) Act (XXIV of 1956) for fixing the fair rent of his holding comprising an extent of 1-03 acres in S. No. 228 and 0-42 acres in S. No. 243-B in Sholamdevi village classified as double crop wet land. The Rent Court fixed the fair rent at 4/5 salagais of paddy per acre for the first crop and 4 salagais of paddy for the second crop and 20 bundles of straw for both the crops. On appeal the Rent Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Court and dismissed the application holding that the land in question is kodikal land used mainly for cultivation of betel vines and therefore exempt under the provisions of section 15 of the Act. Hence this Civil Revision Petition. The short point for consideration is whether the land in question is one used for raising as main crop betel vines and is, therefore, exempt from the operation of the provisions of section 9 by reason of section 15 of the Act. Section 15, so far as it is relevant for the present purpose runs thus:- "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any land during the period when such land is used for raising as main crop, sugarcane, plantain or betel vines." The petitioner has been a lessee of the lands from 1954 and the "evidence is that even after the lease, he has been cultivating the land only with paddy crops. It would appear that a prior tenant, one Chakrai Kader Rowther used to cultivate the land with betel vines. The Rent Court on a discussion of the evidence on both sides found that the case does not fall under section 15 of the Act. The Rent Tribunal, on the other hand, took the view that inasmuch as the tenant intentionally cultivated the land with paddy crops and converted the land into a regular paddy field in order to claim the benefit of the Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act his conduct lacked good faith and that since the land is only kodikal land used for cultivation of betel vines, it should be deemed to be only betel vines land coming under the exemption contemplated by section 15 of the Act. It is common ground that after the petitioner became a lessee he has been cultivating the land only with paddy, though there is evidence to show that formerly the land was used for raising betel. "Cultivation" as defined in the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act (XXV of 1955) means the use of lands for the purpose of agricultural or horticultural. So far as I am able to see there is nothing in the Madras Act XXIV of 1956 to preclude a tenant from using the holding for cultivation of any kind of crop provided it is agricultural or horticultural. If the use is not for purposes agricultural or horticultural, the landlord has a remedy under section 3 of the Madras Act XXV of 1955. Again under section 6 of the Madras Act XXIV of 1956, where in respect of any land fair rent has been fixed, it would be open to either party to apply to the Rent Court for refixing of fair rent after a period of 5 years. In the circumstances, the observations of the Rent Tribunal that: "If the tenant might have cultivated or acted properly, according to his lease contract, at the time of the filing of the petition, it would be betel vine land coming under the exemption under section 15 and he could not have filed the petition for fixation of fair rent at all" on which he appears to have rested his conclusion in this case are beside the point. There can be no doubt on the evidence on record that the land is now being used for raising paddy crops. Exemption from the operation of the Act in respect of a particular holding would come into play only if any land "during the period when such land is used for raising as main crop betel vines". The words "during the period" in section 15 has not been defined in the Act to give them a special meaning. On the plain language, they can have reference only to the period during which such of the crops as are contemplated under section 15 are raised and not necessarily to the initial period of the lease. As I pointed out there is nothing in the Act precluding a cultivating tenant from raising one crop rather than another provided it is of an agricultural or horticultural nature. As I pointed out there is nothing in the Act precluding a cultivating tenant from raising one crop rather than another provided it is of an agricultural or horticultural nature. Nor can he be denied the right to get fair rent fixed under the Act in respect of his holding, the said right being notwithstanding any agreement between a land-owner and the cultivating tenant or any decree of a Court. On the facts of this case, I am inclined to agree with the Rent Court that the exemption under section 15 of the Act is not applicable and hold that the reasoning of the Rent Tribunal to bring the case under the said section 15 is untenable. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Rent Tribunal is set aside and the Order of the Rent Court is restored with costs of the petitioner, throughout. R.M. --------------- Petition allowed.