Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for rent, of property leased to defendants 1 to 6. Defendants 7 and 8 are the latter's sub-lessees. The plaintiff claims the contractual rent under Ext. Al. Defendants 1 to 6 contended that in a fair-rent proceeding instituted by the sub-lessees the rent due to them has been reduced and therefore the rent that is due by them to the plaintiff should also be proportionately reduced. The Munsif repelled that defence as the plaintiff was no party to the fair rent; proceedings. But on appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed him and accepted the defence. Hence this second appeal. 2. The only question here is whether, a fixation of fair rent by the Land Tribunal between the intermediary and the tenant, without notice to the landlord, will bind the latter so as to reduce his claim against the intermediary proportionately. Ia Valid Raja v. Meenakshi Amma (1965 K. L. T. 729) the identical question came before me, when I held that a proceeding to which the landlord was not made a party is of no consequence so far as his rights are concerned. 3. Counsel for respondent, trying to support the decision of the Subordinate Judge, contends that there is frustration of the contract for rent and therefore defendants 1 to 6 are entitled to relief under S.56 of the Contract Act. The matter is covered by authority in that in Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmchinder Singh (A. I. R.1968 S. C. 1084) the Supreme Court has held that section not to apply to leases. The only case of frustration that might apply to leases is what is provided in S.103 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads: "(e) If by fin, tempest, or flood, or violence of any army or of a mob, or other irresistible force, any material part of the property be wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purposes for which it was let, the lease shall, at the option of the lessee, be void: Provided that, if the injury be occasioned by the wrongful act or default of the lessee, he shall not be entitled to avail himself of the benefit of this provision." The instant case does not come within that provision. The injury if at all that is urged by defendants is a direct consequence of their default. 4. Counsel relied also on S.30 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, which says: "30. Rent payable by an intermediary.-- 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." It deals with substantive rights of the parties and provides that when rent due to an intermediary has been reduced the landlord is bound to reduce the rent proportionately. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a party should not be affected by any proceeding to which he was no party and therefore had no opportunity of being heard: Audi alteram par tern. Decisions can bind only the parties thereto, except judgments in rent. The fixation of rent is not in any extent of the sense a judgment in rem and therefore an adjudication between intermediary and his tenant, cannot automatically affect the rent due to the landlord of the intermediary. The rights given under S.30 have to be worked out by proper proceedings binding on the landlord, either by having him impleaded in the proceeding for fixation of fair rent between the intermediary and his tenant or by fresh proceedings therefor. The Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for against all the defendants. As defendants 1 to 6 alone appealed to the lower appellate Court and got the decree modified on a ground which is found unsustainable, this second appeal has to be allowed and, in reversal of the Subordinate Judge, the decree of the Munsiff restored to effect. Judgment accordingly. Allowed.