Judgment :- The tenant is the revision petitioner. Proceedings were taken by tile landlord/re­spondent oil the ground that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rent. Apart from this, the landlord alleged that tile tenant had been drawing water from the well through an oil engine and thereby, caused dam­age to the well. 2. The rent arrears fall under two periods, one from fasli 1383 to 1390 and another one from fasli 1391 to 1400. Fasli 1383 to 1390 fall for consideration in C.R.P.No.520 of 2003 filed against the order in C.T.P.No.175 of 1991. Fasli 1391 to 1400 fall for consideration in C R.P.No.519 of 2003 filed against the order C.T.P.No.77 of 1992. The revision petitioner resisted the claim of the landlord oil the ground that notwithstanding the fact that the lands are in a rain-fed area, there was continuous drought condition, thereby causing failures and he could rake-only kambu and brinjals. The revision Petitioner further submitted that he never raised casuarina in the said lands. The revision petitioner also submitted that the land lord and h is brother insisted on the tenant to surrender their lands, which was resisted to by him and that with this ulterior motive only this petition had been filed alleging rent arrear. 3. It is seen from the papers filed that the lower Court rendered the relief restricting it to three faslis on the ground that the rent with respect to other faslis is barred by limitation. Aggrieved of this order, the landlord came by way of revision in C.R.P.Nos.2036 and 2037 of 1998. By order-dated 4.11.1998, this Court set aside the order of the lower Court and directed the lower Court to consider the issue afresh. This Court also accepted the plea of the petitioner that the Revenue Court has not considered any evidence in support of its conclusion to arrive at the quantum. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the matter was, remitted back to the Revenue Court. Based on the decision in the Case of Swamimalai Devasthanam v. Marimuthu, (1998) 1 C.T.C 21, it was also held that the Revenue Court was not correct in holding that the tenant was not liable to pay the time barred arrears. 4. On remand, by order dated IL 10.2001, the Revenue Court fixed the rent per waram at the ratio of 60:40. 4. On remand, by order dated IL 10.2001, the Revenue Court fixed the rent per waram at the ratio of 60:40. This order was once again taken in revision before this Court in C.R.P. Nos.46 and 47 of 2002. This Court, by order-dated 12.7.2002, once again remanded the matter stating that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Revenue Court, despite the earlier direction. The Revenue Court had not adverted to the objections raised by the tenant; that in order to consider the evidence let in by both the sides, the matter had to be reconsidered. Hence, the remand order was passed. With that, the civil revision petition was allowed. By order dated 4.2.2003, the Revenue Court, considering in detail the contentions and the materials of both sides, ultimately taking note of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department's Hand Book and newspaper report, worked out the prevalent price for the faslis and fixed the rent arrears at 50:50 ratio. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant had come on revision before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Revenue Court faulted on two grounds viz., placing reliance on the hand book of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department and the newspaper report. The learned counsel further submitted that the fixing of ratio at 50:50 was also totally not -authorised by the provisions of the Act. Apart from the legal infirmity, on the factual aspect, the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Court. 6. On consideration of the submission of both sides and a perusal of the order of the Revenue Court, the points raised by the petitioner objecting to the reliance on the hand book and newspaper report do not deserve any acceptance. Equally so the claim of the petitioner that he had not grown any crops does not merit any acceptance. A perusal of the order reveal that the landlord had adduced the adangal copy, substantiating the fact that the petitioner had been raising vegetables, crops and casuarina in the leased out lands and that he had been in receipt of income throughout. A perusal of the order reveal that the landlord had adduced the adangal copy, substantiating the fact that the petitioner had been raising vegetables, crops and casuarina in the leased out lands and that he had been in receipt of income throughout. Since proper evidence was not available as regards the quantum of income received, the Revenue Court has rightly placed reliance on the Hand Book of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Department and giving a discount of 5% and thus fixed the revenue from the lease on an estimated basis. In these circumstances, considering the detailed reference as regards the crops grown and the reliance placed on the hand book forming the basis for fixing the fair rent from the lease, I do not find any good reason to differ on this issue. 7. As regards the contention that the petitioner had not committed default, the Revenue Court had rejected the same on the premise that the petitioner/tenant had not adduced any evidence as regards the payment of the rent for the fasli in question. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not placed or referred to any material to substantiate this allegation that he had not committed any default on the rent due. In these circumstances the feeble plea on this score from the petitioner does not merit any acceptance; 8. As regards the issue raised on the fair rent fixed at 50:50 basis, it is the contention of the petitioner, that the Revenue Court overlooked the provisions of Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 and that the same should have been fixed at 75:25. 9. A perusal of the provisions contained under Sec.4 reveal that prior to the Amendment under Act 17 of 1980, the fair rent fixed for wet land was 40% of the normal gross produce and under Sec.4(3) it was 33-1/3% of the gross produce in the case of any other class of land. The section further provides that where the contract of tenancy provided-for payment of rent lower than the fair rent, the contract rent would prevail over the statutory fixation during the contract period. The section further provides that where the contract of tenancy provided-for payment of rent lower than the fair rent, the contract rent would prevail over the statutory fixation during the contract period. The Amending Act 17 of 1980 had removed the classification of lands as wet land and any other class of land under the substituted Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 and irrespective of the character of the land, fair rent is fixed at 25% of the normal gross produce for its value in money. The contention of the parties fall for consideration both under the pre amendment period as well as to the post amendment period. C.R.P.No.520 of 2003 is concerned about the fasli 1383-1390, relevant to the year 1973-80. C.R.P.No.590 of 2002 is concerned to the period fasli 1391-1400, relevant, to the year 1981-1990. Considering the law, prevailing at the relevant point of time, the fair rent for fasli 1383-1390 relating to C.R.P.No.520 of 2003 shall be 33-1/3% of the normal produce. Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that considering the provisions contained under Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.4, as the water is lifted by pumpsets installed at the cost of the land owner, the fair rent deserved to be fixed As 40% and rent at 33-1/3%. A reading of the petition filed by the respondent before the Revenue Court reveals that the tenant bad put up an oil engine in the well without getting the permission from the landlord. Considering this admitted fact, there is no merit in the claim for the enhanced rent at 40%. As regards fasli 1391 to 1400 relating to C.R.P.No.519 of 2002, the fair rent has to be fixed at 25% of the normal gross produce as its value in money. In the light of the provisions contained under Sec.4, the fair rent fixed by the Revenue Court needs a reworking. 10. In the light of the above, the C.R.Ps., filed by the tenant fails on the question or quantum of fair rent fixed or arrears, as arrived it by the Court below. However, the question of fixation of fair ratio deserves to be reworked keeping in mind the provisions of the Act. The Revenue Court is directed to dispose of the application on the fair rent by reworking the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the question of fixation of fair ratio deserves to be reworked keeping in mind the provisions of the Act. The Revenue Court is directed to dispose of the application on the fair rent by reworking the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation, the C.R.Ps., are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps., are closed.