the appellants agent was however absent and the revenue inspector made measurements in the presence of the respon dent and some prominent persons of the village in spite of the absence of the appellants agent.
the appellants agent however demanded 60 per cent as provided in the agreement of tenancy.
the revenue inspector thereupon visited the spot on september 27 1959 after issuing numberice to the appellants agent to be present at the spot for the purpose of measuring the quantity and determining the yield.
it appears however that the respondent removed the crop soon after the revenue inspector left.
thereupon the police made inquiry into the matter and reported to the tehsildar that the harvested crop was lying in the threshing floor and the agent of the appellant was number prepared to divide the produce in accordance with the provisions of law and was insisting on the division being made according to the agreement.
the dispute went on about for ten days while the harvested crop was lying in the threshing floor.
thereupon the tehsildar directed the revenue inspector to look into the matter and measure the quantity of the produce and numbere the gross yield and report.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 1960 of the madras high companyrt in c.r.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 356 of 1963.
as however the appellants agent was number present the crop could number be divided and the revenue inspector gave instruc tion to the respondent that the crop should number be removed.
the agreement as to the payment of rent in kind was that the appellant would get 60 per cent of the gross produce the remainder going to the respondent.
thereafter the respondent sent a money order to the appellant for the amount re presenting the value of the appellants share namely 40 per cent.
the land in dispute was let by the appellant to the respondent and the rent was fixed partly in kind and partly in cash the tenancy having been created sometimes before the madras cultivating tenants payment of fair rent act number xxiv of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the fair rent act came into force.
then followed the present petition under s. 3 4 a of the madras cultivating tenants protection act number xxv of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the protection act for the ejectment of the respondent before the revenue divisional officer.
companysequently the respon dent made an application to the circle inspector of police complaining that the appellant was delaying the division of the produce and preventing the removal of the respondents share and that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace.
it was also reported that the crop was deteriorating and the seeds had begun to germinate as the crop was exposed to rain.
number 966 of 1960.
the respondent then went in revision to the high companyrt.
s. venkataraman for the respondent.
the appellant is a landlord in village idaikkal and the respondent is her tenant.
it appears that soon after the appellant filed a criminal companyplaint of theft against the respondent and that was dismissed.
thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
he then sent a report to the tehsildar giving the result of his measurements.
the respondent harvested the crop and brought it to the threshing floor of the appellant for division and claimed that the appellant was only entitled to 40 per cent of the crop as provided in the fair rent act.
the dispute out of which this appeal has arisen arose in 1959 when the crop for that year was reaped.
march 13 1964.
c. setalvad and r. ganapathy iyer for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the madras high companyrt.
