Judgment :- 1. The first respondent in L. T. A. 419 of 1964 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Ottapalam is the revision petitioner. Against him the tenant had filed the petition for fixation of fair rent. 2. The property comprised in the petition is 2 acres and 21 cents of paddy land in S. No. 12/4 of Katukulam amsom. The property is double crop paddy land fetching, according to the tenant, an yield of 140 paras in Kanni and 50 paras in Makaram. In the counter, the landlord contended that the petition is not maintainable since the entire holding has not been shown in the petition; a portion of the property has been sub-leased by the tenant and the yield, according to the landlord, is 200 paras of paddy as per 60 nazhi para both in Kanni and Makaram. The contention was also raised that since Act 4 of 1961 has been struck down by the Supreme Court the petition filed under the said Act is not maintainable. The learned Land Tribunal on a consideration of all relevant points bearing on the matter has fixed fair rent at 125 paras of paddy in standard para payable in Kanni and Makaram in the ratio 6:4 with effect from May 1961. On appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in C. M. A. 113 of 1964, the order was modified so as to take effect from the date of the commencement of Act I of 1964 only. 3. The revision petitioner as stated already, was the first respondent before the Land Tribunal. The first respondent here was holding the property under the revision petitioner who is the kanomdar of the property and the second respondent was the jenmi. The third respondent was subsequently added as sub-tenant under the first respondent, and the fourth respondent was added as the next male member of the family of the 2nd respondent. The first respondent here was holding the property under the revision petitioner who is the kanomdar of the property and the second respondent was the jenmi. The third respondent was subsequently added as sub-tenant under the first respondent, and the fourth respondent was added as the next male member of the family of the 2nd respondent. The points pressed before us on behalf of the revision petitioner are: (i) the petition is not maintainable since the entire holding has not been shown in the petition; (ii) since a portion of the property has been subleased to the third respondent, the first respondent is not competent to apply for fixation of fair rent; (iii) the petition having been filed under Act 4 of 1961 is not now maintainable since the said Act has been struck down; (iv) the property would fetch 200 paras of paddy and the gross produce shown is incorrect; and (v) even though petitions filed under Act 4 of 1961 are allowed to be received in accordance with S.132 of the present Act, interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal under the old Act cannot be revived. These contentions were carefully examined by us and we are satisfied that none of them is tenable, especially in view of the concessions made by the present petitioner in the court below. He had agreed in writing on the back of the vakalath itself to fair rent being fixed under Schedule.3. It was also stated in writing that he had no oral evidence to be adduced. Interlocutory orders were also passed with his written consent. The scope of the present petition has been narrowed down considerably by the above concessions and admissions. 4. The one interlocutory order that was challenged before us was the order allowing amendment of the petition. According to the learned counsel, under S.132 sub-section (4) an order fixing fair rent under the old Act will alone be saved and not interlocutory orders that have preceded it. 4. The one interlocutory order that was challenged before us was the order allowing amendment of the petition. According to the learned counsel, under S.132 sub-section (4) an order fixing fair rent under the old Act will alone be saved and not interlocutory orders that have preceded it. Reliance was placed, in this connection, on sub-clause (d) of S.132(4;(ii) which reads: "in cases where orders determining fair rent have been passed or purported to have been passed under the said Act and such orders had become final, such orders shall be deemed to have been passed under this Act for purposes of payment of fair rent." Learned counsel contends that "orders determining fair rent" would alone be treated as orders passed under the new Act. The same protection, according to him, is not extended to other orders passed anterior to the order fixing fair rent. We are unable to see any logic or reason behind this contention. Several interlocutory orders at various stages of the proceedings would have to be passed before final order fixing fair rent is passed. To say that the final order alone is saved under the above said saving provision, and all other orders preceding it would stand cancelled by the striking down of the Act would in effect be canvassing for an unreasonable and irrational position. The final order is only the culmination of other orders passed at various stages of the proceedings and it is seen from the records that the revision petitioner had no objection to the amendment being allowed by the court. Viewed from any standpoint, therefore, it is not open to him now to challenge the order of amendment. 5. The revision petitioner had also a contention before the lower court that he is a small holder and as such under S.27(2)(b) it is open to him to opt for the fair rent, if any, fixed under any law in force immediately before 21st January, 1961, or where rent has not been so determined, for 75 per cent of the contract rent. This privilege is also not available to him now since as early as on 26-8-1964 his advocate bad agreed in writing before the Land Tribunal that he had no objection in the fair rent being fixed under Schedule III. 6. This privilege is also not available to him now since as early as on 26-8-1964 his advocate bad agreed in writing before the Land Tribunal that he had no objection in the fair rent being fixed under Schedule III. 6. Another point argued was that the rent due from the intermediary has not been fixed under the order and therefore the order is incomplete and has to be reopened. This contention also is devoid of merit since under S.30 the rent payable by the intermediary would remain modified in accordance with the fair rent fixed on the application of either the landlord or the cultivating tenant. The section runs: "Where in respect of a holding there is an intermediary at the commencement of this Act and as a result of the determination of the fair rent there has been a reduction or increase in the rent payable by the cultivating tenant, the rent payable by the intermediary to his landlord shall be reduced or increased in the same proportion as the rent to which he was entitled was reduced or increased." There is, therefore, no force in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The maintainability of the petition was challenged on the ground that the tenant (first respondent) having sub-leased part of the holding he is not competent to move for fixation of fair rent since it is the cultivating tenant who is the person competent to file the application. It is true that the first respondent has parcelled out a portion of the holding to the sub-tenant; but that does not make him any the less a cultivating tenant. He is actually in cultivation of the portion retained by him and the Act does not say that such a person is disqualified from filing an application for fixation of fair rent. This contention also is, therefore, not available to the petitioner. 7. Finally, the learned counsel stated that in commuting the 60 nazhi para into standard para inaccuracies have crept in. This contention also is, therefore, not available to the petitioner. 7. Finally, the learned counsel stated that in commuting the 60 nazhi para into standard para inaccuracies have crept in. From the order of the Land Tribunal it is seen that the 200 para as per 60 nazhi para was the figure supplied by the present petitioner in his counter and it was that, that was adopted by the court as the correct yield and under the rules of commutation, 200 paras of paddy as per 60 nazhi para would be equivalent to 500 paras as per standard para. We were not told that this calculation is wrong. 8. We would also observe that this revision is incompetent since no valid grounds are made out to enable this court to interfere in revision. S.103 of Act 1 of 1964 provides for revision to this court against any final order passed in appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the appellate authority has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide any question of law. Neither of these grounds is available to the petitioner in the present case. In any event, therefore, the revision has only to be dismissed. No other point arises. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Dismissed.