Judgment :- 1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are between the same parties and are filed under Art.227 of the Constitution, seeking to vacate the orders passed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, against the orders of the Rent Court, Ponnani, fixing fair rent for two holdings under the Malabar Tenancy Act. Both cases involve the same questions and therefore, they are heard together and this order will cover both the cases. 2. The petitioners in both the cases are tenants under the respondent and they filed petitions before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent of the holdings under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The Rent Court directed a Revenue Inspector to inspect the lands and submit reports, in pursuance of which he submitted reports. Since these reports were objected to, the Rent Court directed a Commissioner to inspect and submit reports, which was also done. Thereafter, the Rent Court considered the cases and, accepting the reports of Commissioner, fixed fair rent under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act in one case at 51.6 Palghat Paras and in the other at 50.7 Palghat Paras and the Rent Court also directed the said fair rent to be paid in two instalments in Kanni and Makaram respectively. The landlord-respondent appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, who varied the fair rent in the former case from 51.6 to 78 paras and in the latter from 50.7 to 102 paras of paddy and directed the same to be paid in Kanni and Makaram as directed by the Rent Court. The Civil Revision Petitions question the correctness of these orders of the learned Subordinate Judge. 3. There was dispute in both cases regarding the extent of the holdings and also regarding the yield. The Revenue Inspector submitted reports regarding both matters and thereafter, the Commissioner also submitted reports thereon. The Commissioner's reports disclosed slightly higher yield from the properties than the reports of the Revenue Inspector. The Commissioner actually measured the holdings and showed the extent of the holdings in his reports. Therefore, regarding the extent of the holdings the Commissioner's reports cannot be challenged and the learned Subordinate Judge as well as the Rent Court has accepted the said reports regarding extent. The Commissioner actually measured the holdings and showed the extent of the holdings in his reports. Therefore, regarding the extent of the holdings the Commissioner's reports cannot be challenged and the learned Subordinate Judge as well as the Rent Court has accepted the said reports regarding extent. There was a third dispute and that related to the question whether the third crop alleged to have been raised in these holdings was also to be taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent. Both the Rent Court as well as the learned Subordinate Judge has excluded the third crop from consideration and the learned advocate of the respondent has fairly conceded before me that the lower courts have rightly excluded the third crop from consideration in fixing the fair rent. The main question, which appears to have been argued before the learned Subordinate judge and which has been argued before me, is the question regarding the yield from the holdings and I shall now consider that question. 4. The learned advocate of the petitioners has drawn my attention to the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge which, according to the learned counsel, is erroneous on the face of it and therefore the judgements of the learned Subordinate Judge are liable to be quashed. In the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, which is questioned in C.R.P. No. 1084 of 1959, the learned judge observes: "So long as the freedom of contract was there cannot be a presumption of rack-renting" In the judgment which is the subject matter of the second case also the learned judge observes as follows: "'It is not disputed by the tenant that the property was being held on a pattom of 165 Palghat paras of paddy for a considerable period. According to him the land-lord was probably rack-renting at the expense of the tenant and that might be the reason for the high rent fixed. It is however seen that the petitioner purchased the tenancy right in the year 1944. He has been paying the rent regularly until the date of the petition. There was no complaint that the rent was excessive. In the circumstances there is no presumption of rack-renting." The learned counsel of the petitioners attacks these observations and comments that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in thinking that the Rent Court has to fix fair rent only if there is rack-renting. There was no complaint that the rent was excessive. In the circumstances there is no presumption of rack-renting." The learned counsel of the petitioners attacks these observations and comments that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in thinking that the Rent Court has to fix fair rent only if there is rack-renting. This criticism appears to be well-founded. A reading of the judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge drives one to the irresistible conclusion that she appears to have been under a mistaken impression that the Rent Court has to intervene and fix fair rent only in cases of rack-renting. This is absolutely unwarranted as will presently appear hereinafter. 5. A few provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act may be noted in this connection to understand the scheme of the Act. S.27 enacts that every cultivating tenant of a holding shall be bound to pay to his landlord (a) in case fair rent has been determined under S.16, such fair rent as modified in appeal, if any, under S.17; (b) in case there has been no such determination, the rent agreed to by both parties to be the fair rent payable in accordance with the provisions of S.4 to 13; (c) in case there is no such agreement, the fair rent, if any, fixed under the Act, as it stood before the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1951; or (d) in case no fair rent has been fixed as aforesaid, the rent payable according to the contract, express or implied between the parties. This provision makes it clear that a cultivating tenant is liable to pay only the fair rent determined under S.16 and 17, in case there is such a determination or the rent agreed to by the parties as the fair rent under the provisions of the Act or the fair rent fixed under the earlier Act prior to the amendment or the contract rent. The mode of fixing fair rent for wet lands is laid down in S.6, which enacts that fair rent in such cases shall be one half of the net paddy produce of the land. "Net produce", in respect of any wet land, means under S.4 (c), the produce remaining after deducting cultivation expenses from the gross produce and "gross produce", under sub-section (b) of the same section, in respect of any wet land, means the normal produce of that land less expenses of harvesting. "Net produce", in respect of any wet land, means under S.4 (c), the produce remaining after deducting cultivation expenses from the gross produce and "gross produce", under sub-section (b) of the same section, in respect of any wet land, means the normal produce of that land less expenses of harvesting. Again "normal produce", in respect of any wet land, is defined in sub-s. (a) of S.4 as the produce, which would be raised, if the rainfall and the seasons were of a normal character, that is to say, were neither unduly favourable nor unduly unfavourable, on the class of land to which it belongs and in the same situation and possessing the same advantages, as determined by the Rent Court in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. The Rent Court is also invested with the power, under S.15, to depute any officer of the Revenue Department to make local enquiry and inspection and to collect data and report and the records submitted by such officer are to be treated as evidence in the case. S.16 lays down that if any dispute arises as to the amount of fair rent payable in respect of any land, the Rent Court shall determine the same on the application of either the landlord or the tenant. S.17 makes provision that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Court under S.16 may appeal against the order to the Subordinate Judge and the said judge shall hear the appeal as a persona designata. 6. The foregoing provisions make it abundantly clear that the cultivating tenant is liable to pay only fair rent; that he can apply to the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent, if there is any dispute regarding the quantum of the same and that the Rent Court has to fix fair rent according to the provisions of S.4 to 13, applying the definitions of the terms like "normal produce", "gross produce" and "net produce" contained in S.4. No question of rack-renting or freedom of contract arises for consideration in the enquiry for fixation of fair rent and there is no presumption that the contract rent is the fair rent, because the tenant has been regularly paying the contract rent without any complaint that the contract rent was excessive. No question of rack-renting or freedom of contract arises for consideration in the enquiry for fixation of fair rent and there is no presumption that the contract rent is the fair rent, because the tenant has been regularly paying the contract rent without any complaint that the contract rent was excessive. In the cases before me there are the settlement records showing the taram or fertility and nature of the lands and there are also the reports of the Revenue Inspector as well as those of the Commissioner regarding the extent, nature and income of the holdings. These are the normal data, along with other evidence regarding normal produce of the class of land similarly situated and possessing the same advantages, that have to be considered in the fixation of fair rent. But strangely enough, the learned Subordinate Judge has brought other considerations, namely freedom of contract, absence of rack-renting etc., which are alien to the matter, to bear on the question and this has vitiated the findings of the learned judge. The variation of the fair rent by the learned Subordinate Judge, to say the least, is quite arbitrary and is not based on any evidence in the cases. If an inferior court or tribunal sets out the reasons for its order, this Court will consider them and see whether those grounds are sound in law or wrong and if unsound will quash the order. Such faulty grounds, on which the order is based, are errors of law apparent on the face of the record, though they may not be errors of jurisdiction and this court will exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution, not only to set right errors of jurisdiction, but to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record as well, in appropriate cases. 7. In a prior case the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have committed similar errors and a learned judge of this Court had occasion to consider her reasoning in Cherunni alias John v. Kavamma, 1960 KLT. 590, and set aside her order. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I quash the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge and in the interests of justice, I further direct that the appeals be re-heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in the light of the legal position made clear by me in this order. 590, and set aside her order. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I quash the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge and in the interests of justice, I further direct that the appeals be re-heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in the light of the legal position made clear by me in this order. In the special circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties will bear their respective costs in these Civil Revision Petitions. Allowed.