Judgment.- This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, in R.A. No. 29 of 1959. The tenant is the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the Rent Court, Thanjavur, in F.R.P. No. 164 of 1958 for fixing the fair rent under section 9 of Madras Act XXIV of 1956 in respect of 6 acres and 75 cents comprised in R.S. Nos. 14, 15 and 16/1 in Royapuram Village, and 82 cents in R.S. No. 196/3 in Poovanur Village. It may be mentioned that out of these extents of land, the petitioner purported to surrender 92 cents of land, evidently with a view to qualify himself for the benefits of the Act. It may also be mentioned that the same petitioner had on a previous occasion in F.R.P. No. 181 of 1957 applied for fixation of fair rent. In that petition, the presiding officer of the Rent Court fixed the fair rent for the year 1956-57 and held that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefits of the Act for the future years. The petition for fixation of fair rent out of which the present petition arises was resisted by the respondent landlord on the ground that the petitioner having not relinquished the 92 cents at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957, he was not entitled to surrender that extent in the subsequent year and claim the benefits of the Act. The Rent Court did not accept that contention and fixed the fair rent. On appeal, the learned District Munsif, on a consideration of the scope of section 14(2), held that the petitioner having failed to avail himself of the option to relinquish the necessary extent of land in order to qualify himself to the benefits of the Act, was not entitled to surrender any portion of the land subsequent to the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and claim the benefits of the Act. In this revision, Mr. Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the learned District Munsif was wrong in the view he took of the scope of section 14 (2) and that under that section, the tenant would be entitled to relinquish the portion of land in excess of one veli even subsequent to the agricultural year ending in 1957. The question is whether this contention is well-founded. The question is whether this contention is well-founded. The Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, is an Act to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants under certain areas in the State of Madras. Clause (b) of section 2 defines a cultivating tenant in the following terms: “ ‘Cultivating tenant’ means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any such person who continues in possession of the land after determination of the tenancy agreement or the heirs of such person, but shall not include a mere intermediary or his heirs.” Section 14 (1) provides that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or owner or as both,, an extent of land in excess of one veli (6| acres) of wet land. Sub-section (2) of section 14 reads: “Any cultivating tenant who owns, or who cultivates either as tenant or as owner or as both, an extent of land exceeding that specified in sub-sction (1) but not exceeding 10 acres of wet land may, by notice in writing addressed to the landowner, relinquish at the end of the agricultural year ending, in 1957 the tenancy, in respect of such portion of the land aforesaid, as may be necessary to entitle him to all the benefits of a cultivating tenant under this Act. Such cultivating tenant shall be entitled to all the benefits of this Act till the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and shall thereafter be entitled to all the rights of a cultivating tenant under this Act only on such relinquishment.” Obviously, but for this sub-section, tenants owning or cultivating either as tenants or owners or as both, an extent of land in excess of one veli, would not be entitled to the benefits of the Act. But this sub-section provides that in the case of tenants cultivating an extent of land not exceeding 10 acres of wet land, they may have the option of relinquishing at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the extent of land in excess of one veli so that they may qualify themselves for the benefits of the Act. But this sub-section provides that in the case of tenants cultivating an extent of land not exceeding 10 acres of wet land, they may have the option of relinquishing at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the extent of land in excess of one veli so that they may qualify themselves for the benefits of the Act. If the tenant has the option to relinquish the land in excess of one veli even subsequent to the agricultural year ending in 1957, the words in the section “ relinquish at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 the tenancy” , etc., would be meaningless. It seems to me that the intention of section 14 (2) is that tenants who are in possession of an extent of land in excess of one veli should exercise the option to relinquish in terms of sub-section (2), that is to say at the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957. If they fail to do so, they will not, in my opinion,, be entitled to the benefits of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 14 does not in terms give the tenant an option to relinquish any portion in excess of one veli at any time he likes. In that view of section 14 (2), I consider that the petitioner was not entitled under that provision to relinquish the 92 cents of land which was in excess of one veli after the end of the agricultural year ending in 1957 and claim the benefits of the Act. The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. K.L.B. ----- Petition dismissed.