Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1961 DIGILAW 182 (KER)

Kelappan Nair v. Payingaten

1961-07-04

M.S.MENON, T.K.JOSEPH

body1961
Judgment :- 1. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether a Rent Court constituted under S.15 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, had jurisdiction to fix the fair rent of a kanom holding prior to the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956 - Act 22 of 1956 - which came into force on 27-10-1956. The lower court held that such a jurisdiction did not exist prior to Act 22 of 1956, and the petitioner before us - a kanom tenant - questions the correctness of that decision. 2. According to Ansari, C. J, in C.R.P. No. 135 of 1960, decided on 5-4-1961, and in C.R.P. 134 of 1956 (K) decided on 9-6-1961, the Rent Court did not have any such jurisdiction. According to Raghavan, J., in his order of reference to a Division Bench dated 30-5-1961, it did have such a jurisdiction, and our task is to decide which of the two views is correct. 3. S.16 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, omitting the proviso thereto, reads as follows: - "If any dispute arises as to the amount of fair rent payable in respect of any land under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, either the tenant, or, after the expiry of three years from the commencement of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1954, the landlord may apply to the Rent Court for the determination of the fair rent; and on such application being made, the fair rent shall be determined by the Rent Court:" The section was amended by Act 22 of 1956 by the addition of the words and brackets "(including a kanamdar or a customary verumpattomdar)" after the words "either the tenant". The section after the amendment reads as follows: "If any dispute arises as to the amount of fair rent payable in respect of any land under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, either the tenant (including a kanamdar or a customary verumpattomdar), or, after the expiry of three years from the commencement of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1954, the landlord may apply to the Rent Court for the determination of the fair rent; and on such application being made the fair rent shall be determined by the Rent Court:" 4. The Preamble to Act 22 of 1956 is in the following terms: "Whereas urgent amendment to clarify the intendment of the Legislature in regard to some of the provisions of Act VII of 1954 and Act XXXIII of 1951 have become necessary in view of some decisions of Courts and whereas the protection sought to be Conferred by Act VII of 1954 would be lost to the tenantry if immediate amendments are not carried out;" The wording of the preamble has been emphasised in the order of reference. There can be no doubt that a court is entitled to obtain assistance from a preamble in ascertaining the meaning of an enacting part. In (1957) 1 All E. R.49 Lord Simonds said: "I conceive it to be my right and duty to examine every word of a statute in its context, and I use context in its widest sense which I have already indicated as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute, but its preamble, the existing state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, and the mischief which I can, by those and other legitimate means, discern that the statute was intended to remedy". 5. The word "Tenant" is defined in S.3 [27] of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, as follows: "'Tenant' means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration, for his being allowed by another, to enjoy the land of the latter, and includes an intermediary, a kanamdar, a kanam-kuzhikanamdar, a kuzhikanamdar, a verumpattamdar of any description and the holder of a kudiyiruppu; but does not include a 'mulgenidar' as defined in the Mulgeni Rent Enhancement Act, 1920, in the villages in the South Kanara District specified in the Schedule." There can be no doubt that a kanamdar comes within the definition. The definition of the expression "Landlord" is S.3 [19] of the Act is: "a person under whom a tenant holds and to whom he is liable to pay rent or michavaram and includes a jenmi." 6. The definition of the expression "Landlord" is S.3 [19] of the Act is: "a person under whom a tenant holds and to whom he is liable to pay rent or michavaram and includes a jenmi." 6. The expression "Rent" is defined in S.3 [25] of the Act as meaning: "Whatever is lawfully payable in money or in kind or in both, to a person entitled to the use or occupation of a land, by another, permitted by the person so entitled, to have the use or occupation of the said land, for any purpose on the understanding, express or implied, that the person so permitted would pay consideration for such use or occupation"and "Fair Rent" in S.3 [7] as meaning the rent payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of 7. Michavaram, no doubt, has a separate definition in S.3 [21] of the Act That definition says: "'Michavaram' means whatever is agreed by a kanamdar in a kanam deed to be [laid periodically, in money or in kind or in both, to or on behalf of the jenmi". The fact that there is a separate definition of the expression michavaram does not, however, mean that michavaram cannot be taken in by the definition of the expression rent. The word 'michavaram' occurs in many sections of the Act and a separate definition of the expression only means that the Legislature thought that such a definition was necessary in the interest of simpler draftsmanship. All that a definition clause in an enactment does is to provide a little dictionary of its own for the purposes of the Act. 8. The existence of a separate definition of the expression 'Michavaram' seems to be the foundation for the conclusion reached by Ansari, C.J., as will be clear from the following extract from the judgment in C.R.P. No. 135 of 1960: "The petitioners' learned advocate argues that the insertion of the words was due to unnecessary caution on the part of the legislature; the word rent in the Act being wide enough to cover what be due from the kanamdar, and the objection to any fair rent being fixed for the kanamdar was not tenable even under the Act as it stood before the amendment. In other words he has urged that the jurisdiction to fix the fair rent covered the kanamdar's claims for fixation of such rent even before the amendment. In other words he has urged that the jurisdiction to fix the fair rent covered the kanamdar's claims for fixation of such rent even before the amendment. "The aforesaid argument, however, overlooks that the Act calls what be payable by the Kanamdar 'michavaram' and not rent. The former word has been defined separately by S.3 (21) to be whatever is agreed by a kanamdar in a kanom deed to be paid periodically in money or in kind or in both or on behalf of the jenmi. The Act therefore does not treat the word to be synonym of rent, which is defined separately by S.3 (25). It is true that the liability to pay money is included in both, but a debtor's liability is also to pay money and in part of Malabar kanam tenure was once treated to be a form of mortgage. It follows that vesting a court under S.16 with the jurisdiction to fix fair rent would not be wide enough to confer it with authority to vary the liability to pay the michavaram as well, and such a court would be without the statutory jurisdiction to interfere were a kanamdar to pray the variation of his liability. The inevitable consequence is that the fixation of the fair rent under S.16 prior to the amendment would be beyond the statutory jurisdiction, and the decree would be treated as nullity were the court with ordinary jurisdiction asked to allow the contract rent." It is true that the expressions "Michavaram" and "Rent" as defined in the Act are not synonymous as stated in the judgment What we are saying is that the former is included in the latter, and the existence of separate definitions do not preclude such a result. 9. In our opinion the use of the word "Tenant" in S.16 entitled a kanomdar to approach the Rent Court for the fixation of fair rent even prior to the amendment effected by Act 22 of 1956, and that the words and brackets introduced by the amendment were only by way of an explanation. 9. In our opinion the use of the word "Tenant" in S.16 entitled a kanomdar to approach the Rent Court for the fixation of fair rent even prior to the amendment effected by Act 22 of 1956, and that the words and brackets introduced by the amendment were only by way of an explanation. S.31 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, says: "Nothwithstanding any contract to the contrary, express or implied, whether entered into before or after the coming into force of this Act, a tenant who pays fair rent shall not be liable to pay to his landlord anything more or anything else than such rent or to render any personal service to such landlord." If this section had stood by itself, there may have been no need for the amendment effected by Act 22 of 1956. 10. S.27 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, dealing with cultivating tenants, however, included the words "other than a kanamdar or customary verumpattomdar". Those words were liable to create confusion and that must have been the reason for the addition of the words and brackets "(including a kanamdar or a customary verumpattomdar)" in S.16 of the Act. 11. In our view the words and brackets added to S.16 by Act 22 of 1956 are, as already stated, no more than an explanation of what was contained therein prior to the amendment. The very fact that the words were added within brackets should point to such a conclusion. It is axiomatic that an explanation only explains, that it does not expand, or add to, the scope of the original section. 12. In the light of what is stated above we hold that a Rent Court constituted under S.15 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, had jurisdiction to fix the fair rent of a kanom holding even prior to the amendment effected by Act 22 of 1956, and that this petition should be allowed. We do so, though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Allowed.