ORDER C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this revision Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar, learned counsel for the plaintiff landlord, challenges the dismissal by the learned Munsif of a suit instituted by the petitioner for recovery of price representing the rent payable by way of pepper for the years 1136 and 1137 M.E. 2. There is no controversy that in the property in respect of which rent is claimed, pepper is cultivated as the principal crop. According to the plaintiff, the property was taken on lease by the respondent from his tarwad on an oral lease in 1940 and the agreement was to pay every year rent of 1/5th of the yield obtained by the tenant. The plaintiff claims that in the tarwad partition, the property has been allotted as and for her share in or about 1131 and the defendant has also attorned in favour of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that a fresh agreement so to say, was entered into between herself and the defendant in and by which the defendant agreed to pay annually 1/6th of the pepper yield as rent. I have already indicated that the original agreement with the tarwad was to pay annually 1/5 of the yield whereas according to the petitioner, the fresh agreement was that the tenant is to pay 1/6 of the annual yield as rent. 3. The petitioner alleged that for the years 1136 and 1137 the tenant has not paid the rent due and therefore the suit was instituted for recovery of the price of pepper payable as rent for these two years. 4. No doubt the defendant appears to have contested even the claim of the plaintiff of the oral lease on the basis of which the defendant was stated to be in possession of the properties. The petitioner also challenged the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant has attorned to the plaintiff agreeing to pay 1/6 of the annual yield of pepper as rent every year. But the defendant raised a further contention that even on the basis that the plaintiff's case of an oral agreement is true nevertheless inasmuch as even according to the plaintiff the entire rent up to and inclusive of 1135 has been paid, the defendant will be liable, if at all to pay rent only in 1141 under the Malabar Tenancy Act. 5. 5. As an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit on the small cause side, the learned Munsiff considers that question and holds in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Then the learned Munsif considers the question as to whether the oral lease and agreement set up by the plaintiff is true and whether the plaintiff is entitled annually to 1/6 of the yield of pepper as and by way of rent. 7. The learned Munsif is prepared to come to the conclusion that the defendant is in possession under the oral lease notwithstanding the denial of the defendant of such an oral lease. But the learned Munsif is of the view that having due regard to the provisions contained in S.10(2) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, as it stood at the material time the landlord is not entitled to claim any rent till the year 1141 as even according to the landlord the entire rent for the year ending 1135 has been discharged by the tenant. In this view, the learned Munsif ultimately holds that inasmuch as the petitioner will be entitled to claim pepper rent only once in 6 years as per S.10(2) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, it is open to her to claim the entire pepper produced for the year 1141 and that for the present no decree can be granted in favour of the plaintiff; and it is on that basis that the suit has been dismissed. 8. Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar pointed out that the Trial Court was prepared to accept the truth of the oral agreement pleaded by his client and it has also disbelieved the case of the defendant when he disputed the oral agreement set up by the plaintiff. That is, according to the learned counsel, the court has come; to the conclusion that the defendant is holding the properties under the plaintiff with an agreement to pay as annual rent 1/6th of the pepper yield as rent. Having found in favour of the plaintiff to that extent, the learned counsel points out that there is nothing in S.10(2) or for the matter of that in any other provisions of the Act which in any way takes away the jurisdiction of a court to pass a decree on the basis of the agreement found in favour of the plaintiff. 9. 9. Reliance placed by the lower court upon the proviso to S.10(2) of the Act, regarding the effect of an agreement in writing registered between the landlord and the tenant according to the learned counsel is absolutely irrelevant. The learned counsel, in this connection, pointed out by reference to S.21, 31 and 43 wherein the Legislature, whenever it wanted to give the go by to a contract entered into between the parties, has used the expression "notwithstanding any contract to the contrary". Therefore the learned counsel pointed out that inasmuch as the Legislature has not in any way abridged the rights of parties to enter into any agreement in respect of rent payable and as pleaded by the plaintiff and as admittedly the tenant has not had the fair rent fixed by a court, the terms of the oral agreement should have been given effect to and the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim by the lower court is erroneous. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to refer to not only to the provisions adverted to by the learned counsel but also to the provisions contained in S.10 as well as to another particular provision which in my view, will conclude the case as against the petitioner namely S.27 of the Act. The group of sections occurring in Chap.2 in which is included S.4 to 13 deal with the fair rent payable in respect of the various categories of lands referred to under the various sections. No doubt there is a general provision in S.16 giving a right to the parties concerned when a dispute arises as to the amount of fair rent payable in respect of any land, under the earlier provisions of Chap.2, to approach the rent court for determination of fair rent. Admittedly in this case, no party has approached the rent court and therefore no fair rent has been determined by that authority. 11. S.10 deals with the fair rent of dry lands. The earlier provisions particularly S.5 to 8 deal with fair rent in respect of wet lands. S.9 deals with fair rent of garden lands and S.10 deals with fair rent in respect of dry lands. 11. S.10 deals with the fair rent of dry lands. The earlier provisions particularly S.5 to 8 deal with fair rent in respect of wet lands. S.9 deals with fair rent of garden lands and S.10 deals with fair rent in respect of dry lands. Inasmuch as it is not in controversy that pepper is cultivated as the principal crop in this land, the fair rent payable will have to be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in S.10 and it will be seen that the particular provision that is applicable will be S.10(2)(a) of the Act. The provision therein is that in case of any dry land on which pepper is cultivated as the principal crop, rent is payable only for the 12th year after the planting of the crop and for every 6th year. The provision also makes it clear that the rent which will be the fair rent shall be the entire pepper produced of the land for the year for which it is payable. That is, after making provision that no rent shall be payable for 12 years after the planting of the crop, the section provides that for every 6th year thereafter the rent which is the fair rent that is to be payable will be of the entire pepper produce of the land for the year for which rent is payable. Therefore, rent will be payable only at the end of every 6th year and the rent that will be so payable will be the entire pepper produce, which shall be the fair rent. 12. No doubt, there is a 1st proviso to S.10(2) wherein provision is made that nothing in sub-s.(2) shall affect any agreement in writing registered between the landlord and the tenant to the effect that the tenant shall pay rent for any land every year but commencing from the 7th year after the planting of the crop. But there also the restriction contained in the last part of the proviso which is not necessary to be noted. But there also the restriction contained in the last part of the proviso which is not necessary to be noted. The only point to be taken note of in this proviso is that notwithstanding the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-s.(2) of S.10, if there is an agreement in writing registered between the landlord and the tenant wherein the tenant has agreed to pay rent for every year beginning from the 7th year after the planting of the crop such an agreement will be valid. 13. In this case admittedly there is no such agreement in writing registered and therefore the proviso also does not come into play. I will now advert to the provisions referred to by Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar, as well as to the particular provision which I have in mind namely S.27. S.21 which occurs in the Chap.3 dealing with fixity of tenure, no doubt uses the expression "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary". S.21 confers fixity of tenure and that is in spite of any stipulation to the contrary contained in any contract. S.31 which occurs in Chap.4, dealing with rents, no doubt uses the expression "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary express or implied". S.31 in my view, is really a provision complimentary to the provisions contained in S.27. The effect of S.31 is to invalidate any claim on the part of landlord for dues other than fair rent, and for anything more than fair rent. S.43 which occurs in Chapter VI dealing with miscellaneous matters, no doubt again opens with the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any contract.......................................". That section deals with the rights of a cultivating tenant on the extinction of the landlord's rights. 14. Based upon these provisions Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar argued that there is no such provision contained in S.27 to which I will make reference immediately. S.27 occurs like S.31, in Chap.4 dealing with rents; and S.27 provides that the various types of persons mentioned therein shall be bound to pay only the rent that is referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d). In my view, clause (a) does not come into the picture because, I have already indicated that no fair rent has been determined in this case under S.16. In my view, clause (a) does not come into the picture because, I have already indicated that no fair rent has been determined in this case under S.16. Clauses (c) and (d) also in my view do not come into the picture. The only other clause that will apply is clause (b) of S.27 which provides for a tenant being liable to pay to the landlord the rent agreed to by the parties to be the fair rent payable in accordance with the provisions of S.4 to 13. Therefore going by the provisions contained in clause (b) of S.27 it will be clear in my view that the liability of a tenant in respect of a land on which pepper is cultivated as the principal crop, the rent which he is to pay will be in accordance with S.10(2)(a) of the Act inasmuch as the proviso which I have referred to does not apply because the agreement in this case is an oral agreement. 15. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar no doubt pointed out that in this case even going by clause (b) of S.27 there is nothing therein which decreeing the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the oral agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay rent every year namely 1/6 of the annual yield and which agreement has been found in favour of the plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel particularly laid emphasis that in S.27 the Legislature does not take away the efficacy of a contract or the rights of parties therein under a contract as is made clear in S.21, 31 and 43. Therefore according to the learned counsel, the agreement in this case found in favour of the plaintiff can be and should have been given effect to by the lower court. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. The liability to pay the quantum of rent and the period when the rent is payable in respect of land on which pepper is cultivated as the principal crop has been indicated and clearly laid down in S.10(2)(a) of the Act. I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. The liability to pay the quantum of rent and the period when the rent is payable in respect of land on which pepper is cultivated as the principal crop has been indicated and clearly laid down in S.10(2)(a) of the Act. I have already stated that S.10 deals with fair rent of dry lands and in order that an agreement entered into between the parties and which is referred to in clause (b) of S.27 can be given effect to by courts, that agreement between the parties must be to pay and receive the fair rent which is payable in accordance with the provisions of S.4 to 13. That group of sections referred to in clause (b) of S.27 admittedly takes in sub-s.(2) (a) of S.10 of the Act. 18. S.27 no doubt makes the tenant liable to pay rent in the manner provided in one or other of the clauses namely clauses (a) to (d) and as I have already pointed out in this case it is clause (b) of S.27 that applies. If that 'is so the liability of the tenant, the defendant in this case is only to pay the fair rent agreed to be paid by him and which fair rent must be in accordance with the provisions of sub-s.(2) of S.10 of the Act. 19. Notwithstanding the fact that S.27 does not use those expressions occurring in S.21, 31 or 43 to the effect "notwithstanding any contract to the contrary" nevertheless S.27 must be considered to have that effect because it imposes an obligation on the tenant to pay only the fair rent in accordance' with the provisions referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of S.27. That again in my view is made clear by another provision on which the learned counsel himself has placed reliance and wherein the expression "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary express or implied" occurs (viz) S.31 of the Act. That provision makes it very clear that any tenant who pays the fair rent shall not be liable to pay the landlord anything more or anything less than such rent or to render any personal service to the landlord notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. 20. That provision makes it very clear that any tenant who pays the fair rent shall not be liable to pay the landlord anything more or anything less than such rent or to render any personal service to the landlord notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. 20. Therefore S.31 itself makes it very clear that if the defendant in this case pays the fair rent, which he is bound to pay under one or other of the provisions of this Act and in this case in respect of the land in his occupation for which the fair rent is provided in sub-s.(2) of S.10 it is clear that there is no further liability to pay anything over and above that to the landlord, and that "notwithstanding any contract to the contrary". 21. Therefore going by clause (b) of S.27 and S.31 which are complimentary to each other, in my view, the tenant in this case is only liable, notwithstanding the oral agreement that is pleaded by the plaintiff, to pay rent only in the manner provided under sub-s.(2) of S.10 in respect of pepper namely once in six years and that rent shall be the entire pepper produce of the land for the year for which the rent is payable and that rent is the fair rent as provided under S.10(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the lower court has accepted the oral agreement pleaded by the petitioner that court must have straightaway decreed the claim of the plaintiff imposing a liability on the tenant to pay every year the rent claimed by the landlord petitioner. 22. At one stage I was under the impression as to whether the lower court should be asked to investigate as to whether the entire pepper produced for the year in question has been paid. But that becomes unnecessary because the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendant has paid the entire rent due till the year 1135. 22. At one stage I was under the impression as to whether the lower court should be asked to investigate as to whether the entire pepper produced for the year in question has been paid. But that becomes unnecessary because the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendant has paid the entire rent due till the year 1135. If that is so, the liability of the tenant to pay fair rent and the right of the landlord to receive such fair rent in respect of the land wherein pepper is chiefly cultivated arises on the next occasion only in 1141; and so far as that year is concerned the learned Munsif has, certainly, having due regard to the provisions contained in S.10(2)(a) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, stated that the plaintiff can demand the entire pepper produce for that year. Therefore no investigation at all need be directed to be made. 23. The result is, in view of the provisions of the statute to which I have made a reference earlier it follows that the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent in respect of pepper for the years 1136 and 1137 is perfectly justified and the C. R. P. will have to be dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.