Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent based on Ext. Al dated 10-11-1952 for the year 1134. Ext.A1 is by Kunhali in favour of Mammad. Plaintiff got an assignment of the rights of Kunhali as per Ext. A2 dated 24-4-1954. The tenant had sub-leased the property and in a proceeding between the tenant and his lessee, to which the plaintiff was not a party, fair rent was fixed under the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act by Ext. BI order dated 4-1-1956 The defendant, who is the assignee of the lessee, claimed the benefit of S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act and claimed proportionate reduction of the amount due from him to the plaintiff based on Ext. BI order. This contention was overruled concurrently by the courts below. The said plea is repeated before us. The learned counsel mainly relied on the observations of Vaidialingam J. in Krishnankutty Menon v. Chirukandan 1958 KLJ. 36 to the effect that what is fixed as fair rent is for the land as such and not for individual tenants or landlords and therefore contended that even though the plaintiff is not a party to Ext. B1 it is binding on him and his client should be given the benefit of S.32 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The same learned judge in Muhammad v. Kesavan Bhattathiripad 1960 KLT. 861 has explained his observations in the earlier decision, and in view of the latter decision it is not possible to accept the contention advanced by the defendant's counsel. Madhavan Nair J. in Rajarjavarma Valiya Raja v. Meenakshi Amma 1965 KLT. 729 had dissented from Krishnankutty Menon v. Chirukandan 1958 KLJ. 36 and followed the decision in Muhammad v Kesavan Bhattathiripad 1960 K.LT. 861. It is observed in Rajarajavarma Volia Raja v. Meenakshi Amma 1965 KLT. 729 thus: "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." In view of the above dictum it follows that Ext. B1 order is not binding on the plaintiff. Even though fair rent is fixed for the property, the question is whether Ext. Consequently it is said a decision of a Court or Tribunal will not bind a person who is not a party thereto." In view of the above dictum it follows that Ext. B1 order is not binding on the plaintiff. Even though fair rent is fixed for the property, the question is whether Ext. BI is binding upon the plaintiff to enable the defendant to claim the benefit of S.32 on that basis. If Ext. BI is not binding on the plaintiff it is not open to the defendant to get advantage of the said order which is one passed behind the back of the plaintiff. The observations. In the Full bench decision in Narayanan Namboripad v. Parvathikutty Naiyssiar 1965 KLT 735 supports the view that we are taking. We therefore hold that the second appeal is without substance. We dismiss the same. But we make no order as to costs. The decree being one for arrears of rent will be subject to S.73 of Act 1 of 1964.