Skip to content


Gur NaraIn Chaube Vs. Nirand Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All342
AppellantGur NaraIn Chaube
RespondentNirand Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
.....the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - it was further stated that the plaintiff had been paid rent at this enhanced rate for some years subsequent to 1917. the learned counsel informs me that the suit has failed in the court below on the ground that it was not competent to the plaintiff to enforce a claim for enhanced rent on the basis of an oral agreement. in my opinion that is a perfectly correct finding. baleshwari prasad informs me that there are some decisions of the board of revenue indicating..........41(1), agra tenancy act, lays, down that the rent of an exproprietary or occupancy tenant shall be liable to enhancement or abatement only: (a) by a registered agreement; or (b) by a decree or order of a revenue court. there is no question of a decree or order in the present case, and consequently i am of opinion that the plaintiff could not set up any agreement other than a registered agreement so as to entitle him to an enhanced rate of rent.2. mr. baleshwari prasad informs me that there are some decisions of the board of revenue indicating that in a case like the present, section 35 should be treated as regulating the rights of the parties. with this i do not agree. the law prohibits enhancement of rent otherwise than by a registered agreement, and to allow a landlord to sue on an.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. In my opinion the plaintiff-appellant cannot succeed. The suit was a suit for arrears of rent. It is stated that the tenant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 100 up to the year 1917. It was pleaded that in 1917 the tenant had by an oral agreement undertaken to pay rent at the increased rate of Rs. 118 a year, and it was on the basis of this agreement that the present suit was brought. It was further stated that the plaintiff had been paid rent at this enhanced rate for some years subsequent to 1917. The learned Counsel informs me that the suit has failed in the Court below on the ground that it was not competent to the plaintiff to enforce a claim for enhanced rent on the basis of an oral agreement. In my opinion that is a perfectly correct finding. Section 41(1), Agra Tenancy Act, lays, down that the rent of an exproprietary or occupancy tenant shall be liable to enhancement or abatement only: (a) by a registered agreement; or (b) by a decree or order of a revenue Court. There is no question of a decree or order in the present case, and consequently I am of opinion that the plaintiff could not set up any agreement other than a registered agreement so as to entitle him to an enhanced rate of rent.

2. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad informs me that there are some decisions of the Board of Revenue indicating that in a case like the present, Section 35 should be treated as regulating the rights of the parties. With this I do not agree. The law prohibits enhancement of rent otherwise than by a registered agreement, and to allow a landlord to sue on an agreement other than a registered agreement is to defeat the declared policy of the law. In short, such an agreement is a void agreement under the Contract Act. I dismiss this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11. Civil P.C.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //