JUDGMENT Bellie, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. He is admittedly the lessee in the suit properties consisting of 1 acre of land and 2 acre 39 cents of cocoanut thope in which the plaintiffs have 1/5 share, on an annual rent of Rs.1,000/-. The plaintiffs' case is that the rent is too low compared to the income from the properties especially considering the 290 cocoanut trees and therefore the rent must be increased to Rs.2,900/- per annum for the cocoanut trees and Rs.2,000/- for the 1.00 acre of nanja land. Their further case is that for several years the defendant has not paid the rent and they are claiming arrears for three years past either as rent if he is a tenant or damage if he is not a tenant, and the plaintiffs share comes to Rs.980/- per year. As stated above it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are owners/ sharers in respect of the suit land and thope. It is also not in dispute that both for the land and the thope the rent fixed was Rs. 1,000/- per annum. The defendant resisted the suit contending that when the rent has been agreed to be Rs.1,000/-, the plaintiffs cannot come to Court for fixing enhanced rent considering the income from the properties. 2. The trial Court accepted the case of the defendant and dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court cannot fix or enhance the rent over and above the agreed rent. On appeal by the plaintiff the first appellate Court however held the view that the Civil Court can enhance the rent considering the income from the land and it fixed the rent at Rs.400/- per year for the plaintiffs' share for three years which aggregates to Rs. 1,200/- in respect of cocoanut thope. In respect of Cultivable land it dismissed the spit. Aggrieved the defendant has come up in second appeal. 3. Now it is argued by Mr. R.T. Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant that when there is an agreed rent the Civil Court cannot enhance the rent taking into consideration the income from the land and therefore the appellate Court is in grievous error in enhancing the rent. I am of the view that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel. R.T. Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant that when there is an agreed rent the Civil Court cannot enhance the rent taking into consideration the income from the land and therefore the appellate Court is in grievous error in enhancing the rent. I am of the view that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel. When the rent has been agreed by the parties, one who must pay the rent is liable to pay that agreed rent only. May be there are certain enactments under which fair rent can be fixed in which event he must pay the rent so fixed. But when the matter do not within the purview of those enactments the Civil Court cannot just considering the income from the land, fix or enhance the rent over and above the rent agreed to by the parties. The first appellate Court in coming to its conclusion has quoted Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. This section merely exempts certain lands from the purview of the Act wherein certain categories of crops are raised, This section will not in any way enable the Civil Court to enhance the rent over and above the agreed rent. The first appellate Court has also relied on a Judgment in Annavi Moopan v. Munia Moopan (1969) M.L.J. 379 : A.I.R 1969 Mad. 436 : 81 L.W. 646. On going through that judgment I find that the facts in that case are quite different from the facts in our case. In that case it appears rent has already been fixed and the land was leased for the purpose of raising a particular crop viz., paddy but in contravention of that the defendant had raised a different crop viz., sugarcane. In that case Ramaprasad Rao, J. has said that the defendant-tenant has put the land to an unauthorised use and thereby made an unjust enrichment and in such cases the Civil Court can interfere and fix a reasonable rent. But in our case there is absolutely no such thing as unauthorised use of the land. The land is being used only for the purpose for which it had been leased originally. Therefore the judgment relied upon by the first appellate Court do not apply to the present case. But in our case there is absolutely no such thing as unauthorised use of the land. The land is being used only for the purpose for which it had been leased originally. Therefore the judgment relied upon by the first appellate Court do not apply to the present case. In this view of the matter I find that the judgment of the first appellate Court is absolutely wrong and therefore it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly this second appeal is allowed and the judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court is restored. Considering the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.