Judgment :- 1. This second appeal has arisen in a suit for rent for the years 1133 and 1134 M.E. 2. 1st defendant is the tenant and defendants 2 and 3 are sub-tenants under him. The rent is claimed against the 1st defendant and charged on the lessee's interest in the property. The annual rent fixed by agreement, evidenced by Ext. A-1, is 146 paras and 4 edangazhies of paddy and Rs. 38. 3. In regard to the sub-tenancy between the 1st defendant on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other, there was a proceeding for fixation of fair rent, evidenced by Exts. B-15 and B-16; but the plaintiff was no party thereto and therefore he contended it not to have any effect as regards him. The Courts below over-ruled his plea and on the basis of the fair rent between defendant 1 and defendants 2 and 3 and in the light of 3.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, decreed annual rent payable to plaintiff at 119 paras 6 edangazhies of paddy and Rs. 19.91 ps. (The judgment says 199 odd paras, which counsel on both sides agree is a mistake for 119 odd paras only). Hence this second appeal. 4. It is an elementary rule of judicial procedure that a person cannot be affected without being given an opportunity to be heard. Consequently it is said a decision of a Court or Tribunal will not bind a person who is not a party thereto. It is conceded that the plaintiff-landlord was no party to the proceedings before the Rent Court. I am at a loss to understand how then the fair rent fixed behind him would have any effect on his claims. 5. Counsel for the 1st defendant-respondent contended that fair rent fixed for the land would bind all parties concerned with the land, whether made a party or not to the proceedings, and relied on Krishnankutty Menon v. Chirukandan (1958 KLJ. 36). No doubt, there is an observation therein "what is fixed as fair rent is for the land as such and not for individual tenants or landlords" and therefore would bind the landlord though not made a party to that fixation. It may be noted here that the same learned judge did not care to follow that decision in a later case, Muhammed v. Kesavan Bhattathiripad (1960 KLT. 861). It may be noted here that the same learned judge did not care to follow that decision in a later case, Muhammed v. Kesavan Bhattathiripad (1960 KLT. 861). In his commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, Mulla says "The relation of lessor and lessee is one of contract". Contractual relations may be subject to statutory control. Even so, I am unable to follow the distinction that rent is for the land and not for the landlord. Rent fixed in terms of produce of the land really represents the landlord's share of the produce. It may be in respect of the land, but it is meant for the landlord. It is a benefit due to him, not an attribute of the land as such. The Supreme Court has held in Nani Bai v. Gita Bai (AIR. 1958 SC. 706) that a proceeding to which the proprietor is not made a party is of no consequence so far as his rights are concerned. To follow the ratio of that decision the fixation of fair rent as between 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 5 has to be held of no consequence as regards the plaintiff, who must then be entitled to relief in this suit in accordance with the terms of Ext. A-1. The defendants will get credit for revenues paid by them. The second appeal is allowed with costs. The provisions of Act I of 1964 relating to discharge of rents will not be affected by this judgment. Allowed.