| Headnote |
Landlord and Tenant—Rent—Enactment providing for fixation of maximum rent— Constitutional validity—Notification sizing standard rent—Validity—Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. 67 of 1948), 8. 6—Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 (Mysore 13 of 1952), as. 6(1)(2), 12—Constitution of India, Art. 14,19(1) (f), 26,31,314.The Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was enacted, inter alia, for the purpose of regulating the law which governed the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands. Sub- section (1) of s.6 of the Act provided: ‘Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court or any law, the maximum rent payable in respect of any period...... by a tenant for the lease of any land shall not exceed one-half of the crop or crops raised on such land or its value as determined in the prescribed manner”, ‘'The Government may, by notification in the Mysore Gazette, fix a lower rate of the maximum rent payable by the tenants of lands situate in any particular area or may fix such rate on any other suitable basis as they think fit’. In exercise of the powers conferred by s.6(2), the Government of Mysore issued g notification purporting to fix the standard rent for lang a specified in Sch. I which dealt with Maidan areas i.e, lands on the plains at one third of the produce, and for those specified in Sch.II which dealt with Malnad areas i.c., lands on hilly tracts at one fourth. The appellant who owned garden land in the district of Shimoga in Mysore State and who had leased out the land to a tenant, challenged the validity or s.6(2) of the Act as well as the notification on the grounds that they contravened Arts. 14, 19(1) (f), 26, 31 and 31A of the Constitution of India, and that, in any case, the notification was inconsistent with s. 6(t) inasmuch as it was based on s. 6(2) which being an exception to s. 6(1) could not be allowed to swallow up the general rule and that was precisely what the notification purported to do. The Mysore Tenancy Act was modelled on the pattern of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the provisions of s.6 of the Mysore Act were similar to s.6 of the Bombay Act. In Vasantlal Maganbhoi Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay, {1961} 1. S.C.R. 341 ;it was held that s. 6 of the Bombay Act was vaild. The appellant contended that the aforesaid decision was not applicable because there were differences’ between the two Acts inasmuch as (1) in the preamble to the Bombay Act it was stated that it was passed inter alia for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants and this was not mentioned in the Mysore Act, (2) unlike the Mysore Act, the Bombay Act, made a_ distinction between the irrigated and non-irrigated land (3) the Bombay Act while prescribing a maximum took the precaution of also prescribing a minimum and the absence of the latter provision in the Mysore Act made a material difference. Held, that: (1) the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was substantially similar to Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and that the question as to be whether S. 6 (2) of the Mysore Act was valid must be held to be covered by the decision the Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay [1961] 1 S. C. R. 341. Accordingly, s.6(2) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was valid. (2) on its true construction, s.6(1) of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, was intended to apply to all agricultural leases until a notification was issued under s.6(2) in respect of the areas where the leased lands might be situated ; s 6(2) could not, therefore, be considered as an exception to s.6(1). Consequently, the notification in question was valid. |
