Judgment :- 1. These revision petitions filed under S.103 of Act I of 1964, arise out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under the said Act. 2. The contention of the respondent-being the land-lord who is the same in both cases is that the properties which are the subject matter of these petitions are usually cultivated with Mundakan crop besides Viruppu and Puncha crops and all the three crops should be taken into consideration for fixation of fair rent. The Tribunal took into account only Viruppu and Puncha crops for fixation of fair rent. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal by the land-lord held that the produce of all the three crops has to be taken into account for fixation of fair rent and the applications were therefore remanded to the Tribunal for revising the fair rent fixed. 3. The question raised in these petitions relates to the mode of fixation of fair rent in the case of nilam on which more than one crop of paddy is ordinarily raised in an agricultural year. According to S.27 of Act I of 1964, the fair rent in respect of a holding shall be the rent payable by the cultivating tenant to his land-lord and it shall be the rent calculated at the rates specified in Schedule III applicable to the class of lands comprised in the holding or the contract rent, whichever is less. In respect of nilams Schedule III provides for fixation of fair rent on the basis of the gross produce. S.2, sub-section (16) of Act I of 1964 defining "gross produce" made thus: "gross produce, in the case of nilam, means the normal produce of that nilam less the cost of harvesting and in the case of a garden or dry land, means the normal produce of that garden or dry land: Provided that in determining the gross produce in the case of any double crop nilam account shall be taken as though only a single paddy crop, which shall be the principal crop, has been raised on the land, if it had been converted from single crop into double crop nilam at the tenant's expense, and as though two paddy crops have been raised on the land in other cases. Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this clause, "normal produce" in respect of any land means the produce which would be raised if the rainfall and the seasons were of a normal character;". 4. 'Double crop nilam' is defined under S.2 sub-section (10) of the Act thus: "'double-crop nilam' means nilam on which more than one crop of paddy is ordinarily raised in an agricultural year;". 5. According to the tenant, even though three crops are ordinarily raised, the nilam in respect of which fair rent has to be fixed is a "double crop nilam" as defined in the Act, and in view of the proviso to S.2, "sub-section (16) of Act 1 of 1964, only the income from two crops can be taken into account for determining "gross produce" 6. The proviso to S.2 sub-section (16) of Act 1 of 1964 deals with two categories of double crop nilam; (1) single crop nilam converted into double crop nilam at the tenant's expense and (2) other cases of double crop nilam. For the latter category of double crop nilam "gross produce" has to be calculated as though two paddy crops have been raised on the land. In the case on hand there is no conversion of any single crop nilam at the expense of the tenant and therefore the latter portion of the proviso applies. Though there was an attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the land-lord to suggest some ambiguity in the clause 'as though two paddy crops have been raised on the land in other cases' in the proviso, we are satisfied that the said clause is sufficiently clear to include within its ambit all categories of double crop nilam other than those which are the result of conversion of single crop nilam at the expense of the tenant. 7. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the main portion of subsection (16) of S.2 of Act 1 of 1964 it is stated in clear and unambiguous language that "gross produce" in the case of nilam means the normal produce of that nilam less the cost of harvesting and the provision cannot be allowed to restrict the operation of the main provision. S.2 sub-section (16) deals with all kinds of nilam and garden or dry land. The proviso to the same deals with the determination of the gross produce in the case "double crop nilam". S.2 sub-section (16) deals with all kinds of nilam and garden or dry land. The proviso to the same deals with the determination of the gross produce in the case "double crop nilam". A proviso to a section is merely subsidiary to the main section and is to be construed in the light of the section itself. The object of the proviso is to carve out an exception to the main provision. In M. & S. M. Rly. v. Bezwada Municipality (AIR. 1944 PC. 71 at 73), Lord Macmillan observed the effect of a proviso thus: "The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is confined to that case. Where, as in the present case, the language of the main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from it by implication what clearly falls within its express terms." 8. In I. T. Commissioner v. I. M. Bank Ltd., (AIR. 1959 SC. 713 at 718) the Supreme Court said: "The territory of a proviso therefore is to carve out an exception to the main enactment and exclude something which otherwise would have been within the section. It has to operate in the same field and if the language of the main enactment is clear it cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the main enactment or to exclude by implication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that that is its necessary effect." (Vide also Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Attorney General for Canada. 1946 AC. 32). 9. The proviso in dispute by express words takes out 'the double crop nilam' from the main provision in the matter of fixing the gross produce for arriving at the fair rent. 10. The learned Subordinate Judge was therefore wrong is directing the inclusion of the produce of all the three crops for fixing the "gross produce". 1946 AC. 32). 9. The proviso in dispute by express words takes out 'the double crop nilam' from the main provision in the matter of fixing the gross produce for arriving at the fair rent. 10. The learned Subordinate Judge was therefore wrong is directing the inclusion of the produce of all the three crops for fixing the "gross produce". Since it is found by the Tribunal that Mundakan crop is better than Viruppu crop in the locality, the view taken by the Subordinate Judge that gross produce will have to be fixed on the basis of Puncha and Mundakan crops is correct and a remand for reassessment of fair rent on that basis is necessary. 11. The orders of the learned Subordinate Judge are therefore modified by directing the Tribunal to ascertain the gross produce on the basis of Puncha and Mundakan crops in the properties and then to fix the fair rent. The revision petitions are allowed to the extent stated above without any order as to costs.