Skip to content


B. and N.W. Railway Vs. Bandhu Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All342; 2Ind.Cas.223
AppellantB. and N.W. Railway
RespondentBandhu Singh
Excerpt:
act (local) no. 11 of 1901 - (agra tenancy act), section 4--tenant--license to cut grass from embankments of a railway line--profit a prendre--jurisdiction of civil court. - .....therefrom. the suit was brought by the railway company to recover the price of the grass and the learned munsif was doubtful as to whether he had jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of the tenancy act. the munsif was doubtful whether the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of that expression in the tenancy act and as to whether or not the return agreed to be made by the defendant for the appropriation of the grass on the embankment was not rent within the meaning of section 4 of the tenancy act. we are of opinion that the defendant in not a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of the tenancy act. he has merely obtained from the company a license to go upon their embankment and cut grass therefrom. the right which he.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Munsif of Gorakhpur, under the provisions of Section 195 of-the Tenancy Act. From the reference it appears that the defendant was authorised by the plaintiff company under a written document to enter upon part of the railway embankment and cut grass therefrom. The suit was brought by the Railway company to recover the price of the grass and the learned Munsif was doubtful as to whether he had jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Munsif was doubtful whether the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of that expression in the Tenancy Act and as to whether or not the return agreed to be made by the defendant for the appropriation of the grass on the embankment was not rent within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. We are of opinion that the defendant in not a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. He has merely obtained from the company A license to go upon their embankment and cut grass therefrom. The right which he obtained under the agreement was in the nature of a profit & prendre and mothing more. He did not thereby become a tenant of. the plaintiff company and the payment which he agreed to make was not in the nature of rent within the meaning of that expression in the Tenancy Act. We direct the learned Munsif to proceed with the hearing of the suit.


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