Skip to content


Sheo Balak Ram and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All745
AppellantSheo Balak Ram and ors.
RespondentMohan Lal and anr.
Cases Referred and Jeoni v. Kalloo A.I.R.
Excerpt:
.....not subsist between the plaintiff and himself on the ground that he has in good faith paid the rent claimed to some third person. but the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the contesting defendant on the ground that the relation of land holder and tenant did not subsist between the parties as the defendant had been in good faith paying the rent of the plots in dispute to binda charan who was the owner of the remaining half of the patti. uma shanker bajpai has, with his usual ability, argued that in order to entitle a defendant to the protection afforded by section 198, tenancy act, all that is necessary is that he must in good faith have been paying the rent to some third person, and that it is immaterial whether or not the amount claimed in a suit for arrears of rent was..........not subsist between the plaintiff and himself on the ground that he has in good faith paid the rent claimed to some third person.2. in the litigation giving rise to the present appeal, it was common ground that the plaintiff was owner of half the patti in which the plots in respect of which the rent was claimed were situate, and as such the plaintiff was obviously entitled to the amount claimed by him, which was made up of half of the rent of the plots together with interest thereon. but the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the contesting defendant on the ground that the relation of land holder and tenant did not subsist between the parties as the defendant had been in good faith paying the rent of the plots in dispute to binda charan who was the owner of the remaining half of.....
Judgment:

Iqbal Ahmad, J.

1. This appeal must succeed. The point involved in this appeal is covered by two decisions of this Court reported as Sheodihal Singh v. Badri Narain [1911] 33 All. 61 and Jeoni v. Kalloo A.I.R. 1921 All. 105. It has been held in those cases that in suits for arrears of rent the protection afforded by Section 198, Tenancy Act, is available to a defendant only in those cases in which the defendant pleads that the relation of land holder and tenant does not subsist between the plaintiff and himself on the ground that he has in good faith paid the rent claimed to some third person.

2. In the litigation giving rise to the present appeal, it was common ground that the plaintiff was owner of half the patti in which the plots in respect of which the rent was claimed were situate, and as such the plaintiff was obviously entitled to the amount claimed by him, which was made up of half of the rent of the plots together with interest thereon. But the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the contesting defendant on the ground that the relation of land holder and tenant did not subsist between the parties as the defendant had been in good faith paying the rent of the plots in dispute to Binda Charan who was the owner of the remaining half of the patti. Both the Courts below have accepted this defence and have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is abundantly clear from the written statement filed by the defendant that he had not, prior to the institution of the suit, paid the arrears claimed by Binda Charan, but the amount was, undoubtedly, due from him, and all that he alleged was that he will pay the same to Binda Charan. It having been admitted by the defendant that the amount claimed had not been paid by him to any person, Section 198, Tenancy Act had no application to the case, and both the Courts below were wrong in dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

3. Mr. Uma Shanker Bajpai has, with his usual ability, argued that in order to entitle a defendant to the protection afforded by Section 198, Tenancy Act, all that is necessary is that he must in good faith have been paying the rent to some third person, and that it is immaterial whether or not the amount claimed in a suit for arrears of rent was actually paid by him to some third person before the institution of the suit. I am not prepared to say that the argument is without force, but the force, if any, must give way to the authority of the Division Bench rulings of this Court noted above.

4. It being an admitted fact that the plaintiff is owner of half of the patti in which the plots in possession of the defendant are situate, the plaintiff is a person to whom a portion of the rent with respect to the said plots is payable and the defendant is a person by whom rent is payable and, therefore, the plaintiff is a 'landholder' and the defendant a 'tenant' within the meaning of those terms as defined by Section 4(5), Tenancy Act, and the relation of land holder and tenant does, undoubtedly, exist between the parties, and the rent claimed by the plaintiff not having been already paid by the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.

5. For the reasons given above I allow the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the Courts below, decree the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.


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