Judgment : 1. The landlord in the application filed by the tenants for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 is the revision petitioner. The respondents in this revision are the legal representatives of the tenant Ponnusamy in that proceedings, which was take on file as Fair Rent Application No. 40 of 1981 by the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai. In the fair rent application the tenants filed a petition to amend the extent of the lands in their occupation from 4.06 acres to 3.65 acres. Though opposed by the landlord, that application was allowed by order dated 13. 1989 by the Revenue Court. An appeal filed by the landlord in Appeal No. 17 of 1990 before the Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai (Revenue Tribunal) was also dismissed. Hence the present revision. 2. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order under challenge passed by the Revenue Court and affirmed by the appellate Tribunal is without authority of law and therefore, cannot be sustained. Learned counsel contended that the extent of the holding in the hands of the tenants cannot be allowed to be altered and brought into the record by way of amendment as has been done in this case. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the orders under challenge do not suffer from any illegality and therefore, no interference is called for. .3. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, I perused the material papers placed before the court. The respondents are the legal representatives of one Ponnusamy, who was the original tenant. The landlord initiated proceedings in P. No. 605 of 1980 in the Revenue court, Mayavaram against the said tenant for his eviction on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. The extent of land in the occupation of the tenant was shown to be 4.06 acres. The tenant filed a counter, in which there is an admission that he was in possession of the lands mentioned in the eviction petition as a cultivating tenant for so many years. As already noticed the extent mentioned in the eviction petition is 4.06 acres. The tenant, while he was alive, filed a petition under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act viz. As already noticed the extent mentioned in the eviction petition is 4.06 acres. The tenant, while he was alive, filed a petition under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act viz. , F.R. No. 40 of 1981 showing the extent of land in his occupation as 4.06 acres. In this case I am not going into the question of merits or otherwise of the claim of the tenant for fixing the fair rent. It appears thereafter that the tenant Ponnusamy died and his wife Thangayal, who is the second respondent in this revision, moved the Tahsildar exercising power under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act 10 of 1969) to substitute her name in the approved tenancy records in respect of 4.06 acres of land which was originally in the occupation of her husband. That application was allowed and thus in respect of 4.06 acres in the approved record of tenancy rights maintained under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, the name of the widow of the deceased tenant had come to be brought on record. About these facts there is no dispute at all. In F.R. No. 40 of 1981 on the file of the Revenue Court, Mayavaram, which was a petition originally filed by Ponnusamy the then tenant, the respondents in this revision were brought on record as his legal representatives. It also appears that in the proceedings a Surveyor was appointed to measure the actual extent of land available in the hands of the tenant and then after his death in the hands of his legal representatives. It is further seen that the surveyor filed a report and a plan, which showed that 0. 41 acres was not in the occupation of the tenants. In other words, the report is stated to have shown that the tenants are in occupation of only 3.65 acres out of 4.06 acres, which is the subject matter of the lease. Consequent to that report an application was filed to amend the fair rent petition reducing the extent of land from 4. 06 acres to 3.65 acres. As already noticed by me that was ordered and the appeal was also dismissed. It is not the case of the tenants that even at the inception of the tenancy, only 3.65 acres was demised and not 4.06 acres. .4. 06 acres to 3.65 acres. As already noticed by me that was ordered and the appeal was also dismissed. It is not the case of the tenants that even at the inception of the tenancy, only 3.65 acres was demised and not 4.06 acres. .4. The question that falls for consideration is, whether the tenants are entitled to contend in the present proceedings for fixation of fair rent that they are not in occupation of 4.06 acres but they are in occupation of only 3.65 acres and whether they are entitled to have the relief of reducing the extent of the land originally demised and hence the fair rent for the same alone should be fixed in the fair rent petition. It is needless to state that under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, an approved record of tenancy rights is prepared. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of that Act states that the particulars mentioned therein shall be included in the said record. One such particular is the extent of the land under cultivation. Such approved record of tenancy rights can also be modified under Section 5 of that Act. Any application under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rules are framed under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 and they are called a Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969. Under Rule 10 of the Rules the application under Section 5 shall be in Form V. Form V prescribes the extent of the land as one of the particulars to be entered into in that application. In this case, I have already noticed that on the death of the original tenant Ponnusamy, the name of his wife Thangayal had come to be substituted in the name of the original tenant in respect of 4.06 acres. Under Section 5 of the Act any subsequent change in the circumstances can also give a cause of action for modifying the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights. Under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, any entry in the approved record of tenancy rights shall be presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, any entry in the approved record of tenancy rights shall be presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. The approved record of tenancy rights shows that as on date an extent of 4.06 acres in survey No. 38 in 50, Maharajapuram Vattam, Manalur village, within the jurisdiction of Revenue Court, Mayavaram is under the cultivation of Thangayal, who is the second respondent in this revision. In view of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 this entry shall be presumed to be correct till the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Any modification or correction in the entry has to be necessarily done only by the hierarchy of officers exercising power under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 and not by any other officer exercising power under any other enactment. In other words the preparation of the record of tenancy rights has to be necessarily and exclusively raised and considered only under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 and not under any other enactment. To allow an authority other than an authority acting under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 to pass an order in the nature of an order challenged in this case, would result in a conflict between a statutory record called Approved Record of Tenancy Rights prepared under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 and an order passed by an officer acting under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act. It is needless to state that Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 is a special enactment dealing with the rights of lessor and lessee under that Act. In respect of the matters in regard thereto not provided for under the Act, one has to necessarily fall back upon the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act. The rights and liabilities of the lessor and lessee are provided for under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. .5. On factual position in this case, it is not the case of the tenants that the extent of land in their occupation was reduced on account of any act of the landlord. The rights and liabilities of the lessor and lessee are provided for under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. .5. On factual position in this case, it is not the case of the tenants that the extent of land in their occupation was reduced on account of any act of the landlord. When that is the position, can any act or omission, knowingly or unknowingly, on the part of the tenants, which has the effect of reducing the extent of land in their occupation, would deprive would deprive the landlord of his lawful return, on the entirety of the extent of land, which was originally demised? The answer in my considered opinio n is in the negative. The surveyor’s report and the plan in this case are stated to have disclosed that in respect of 0.41 acres out of 4.06 acres some trespassers are there. To say that the tenant has got every right to exclude that extent of land, which is stated to be in the occupation of the trespassers in the given circumstances, would amount to forcing the landlord to have a jural relationship with the said trespassers, when really on facts there is no privity of contract between him and the so ca lled trespassers. It does not lie in the mouth of the tenants to say that the lessor must be deprived of his lawful return to the extent to which the tenants are stated to have been dispossessed. If the lessee becomes aware of any encroachment made upon the property demised to him, then under Section 108 (n) of the Transfer of Property Act, he is bound to give with reasonable diligence, notice thereof to the lessor. In any given case, the possibility of the alleged trespassers being persons set up by the tenant cannot be ruled out at all. Therefore any change regarding the extent of land in the occupation of the tenant to be made in the Approved Record of Tenancy Rights maintained under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 has to take note of the rights and liabilities of the lessor as Property Act since Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 does not contain any provision regarding the rights and liabilities of the lessor when the property demised to the tenant is stated to have been encroached. 6. 6. Under these circumstances, even on facts, I am of the opinion that any alleged reduction in the extent of land in the occupation of the tenants to which the lessor is not a party, should not be taken into account while fixing the fair rent payable by the tenants if any, till the extent of the land in the occupation of the tenant as entered in the Approved Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969 remains unaltered. Accordingly, I find the order under challenge cannot be sustained and it is set aside. This revision is allowed. No costs.