Judgment :- 1. The learned District Munsif, Sirkali, on a bare reference to the Sections and without adverting to the material before him or placed before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. According to the petitioner, the decree obtained by the respondent is liable to be scaled down in view of the provisions of Act IV of 1938 read with Act 8 of 1973. ‘Rent’ as defined in Act IV of 1938, meant ‘rent’ as defined under the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908, etc. But then, this definition has been expanded by Act 8 of 1973, so as to mean the rent payable by a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, etc. On the basis of this expanded definition, the petitioner sought for the scaling down of the decree. The respondent, obviously, opposed the same on the ground that the decree cannot be totally held to be a debt, but the decree was as a result of the rent which was in arrears and which became payable by the petitioner and the expanded definition under Act 8 of 1973 should be understood as giving a relief to the cultivating tenant in so far as it relates to the fair rent payable by him under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1956. Learned counsel for the respondent, fairly concedes that the matter was not argued before the court below in the above light. But, when an application for scaling down was made, the learned District Munsif was of the view that as arrears of rent was the basis of the decree, S. 19 was not applicable for scaling down the same in the instant case. He applied S. 17-A and dismissed the application. It is as against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 2. As the intention of the Legislature in introducing agrarian legislation from time to time and tinkering with it, also from time to time, was mostly intended for the benefit of the tenants then such Acts and the amendments thereof have to be so construed and interpreted. In the expanded definition under Act 8 of 1973, ‘rent’ means ‘ the rent ’ payable by a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. In the expanded definition under Act 8 of 1973, ‘rent’ means ‘ the rent ’ payable by a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. When the court has been moved to scale down a debt under the provisions of the parent Act, and when, on the date when the application for such a relief was made, the amending Act 8 of 1973 was already effective, then the court is bound to look into the expanded definition which, in my view, is declaratory of a particular situation and is not intended to create certain new situations. Then, the meaning of the word ‘rent’ as including the rent payable by a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, is a meaning which has to be given effect to and taken to be applicable to the particular facts, of a case which comes up for adjudication after such amendment. It is only in this way that the beneficial legislation intended to protect tenants and their interests can be usefully applied and the interests of the tenants advanced thereby. I am, therefore, of the view that the lower court ought to have enquired into the fact as to what was the rent payable by the petitioner as a cultivating tenant under Act 24 of 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, says that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the Fair Rent Act. This is, again, a manner which has to be enquired into. If he is not entitled to the benefits of the Fair Rent Act, then possibly, the petitioners contention that, the entirety of the suit amount is a debt within the meaning of S. 3 (iii) of Madras Act IV of 1938 may be correct. But, I am not expressing any opinion on it, without an examination on the merits of the case, which was avoided by the court below. But, I am not expressing any opinion on it, without an examination on the merits of the case, which was avoided by the court below. While setting aside the order of the lower court, I remand the subject matter for a further and fuller enquiry on merits to find out: (a) whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act 24 of 1956, (b) if so, what is the fair rent payable under the said Act, and (c) to the extent of the fair rent payable by him, the application for scaling down would not be available, but if the decree amount is over and above the fair rent payable by him under Act 24 of 1956, then that portion of the excess would be a debt within the meaning of the Act, which would be liable to be scaled down under Act IV of 1938. Bearing the above directions in mind, the court below shall enquire into the subject matter on remand. The civil revision petition is allowed. But, there will be no order as to costs.