Skip to content


Huro Prasad Roy Chowdhry Vs. Chundee Churn Boyragee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal505
AppellantHuro Prasad Roy Chowdhry
RespondentChundee Churn Boyragee and ors.
Cases ReferredSoorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ali
Excerpt:
enhancement of rent - land let for purpose of clearing at certain rent. - .....no ground for interfering with the decision of the court below.2. the suit was for enhancement of rent of a holding. it appears that the holding of the defendant was a tenure created under a certain amulnama. we must take it, the document itself not being before us, that the terms of the document are correctly stated in the judgment of the lower appellate court. it is there stated: 'it appears from the rubokaris and amulnama, dated 8th february 1849, that the land of this tenure was originally taken for the express purpose of clearing jungles. it was a khalari land. after the abolition of salt-manufacture, it became covered with jungle. the authorities thought it proper to let it out to the best advantage. as labour and capital must be laid out before this land could be brought into.....
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. We think that in this case there is no ground for interfering with the decision of the Court below.

2. The suit was for enhancement of rent of a holding. It appears that the holding of the defendant was a tenure created under a certain amulnama. We must take it, the document itself not being before us, that the terms of the document are correctly stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It is there stated: 'It appears from the rubokaris and amulnama, dated 8th February 1849, that the land of this tenure was originally taken for the express purpose of clearing jungles. It was a khalari land. After the abolition of salt-manufacture, it became covered with jungle. The authorities thought it proper to let it out to the best advantage. As labour and capital must be laid out before this land could be brought into cultivation, it was thought fit to make a jungleburi tenure in favour of the defendants, the maximum rent whereof was fixed at 8 annas per bigha. Under the rulings in Watson v. Joggeshar Attah (Marsh., 330); Golam Ali v. Gopal Lal Thakoor 15 B.L.R. 125: s.c. 19 W.R. 141; and Soorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ali 9 W.R. 65; I agree with the Court below in holding that this tenure is not liable to enhancement under the Rent Law.'

3. Now, the question is shortly this: When land is let for the purpose of clearing jungle or other reclamation, and on this ground, or any other ground mentioned in the lease, a reduced rent is provided for the first few years, and it is said that the rent is to be at such and such rate, a sum as the full rent--does that mean, as the words seem to import, that the full rent is to be the full rent as long as the tenure subsists, or is such a rent liable to enhancement under the provisions of the Rent Law? We agree with the lower Appellate Court in thinking that the decision of the Privy Council in Soorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ali 9 W.R. 65 is an authority for holding that the former view is the true one, and that in the present case that rent cannot be enhanced.

4. This appeal is dismissed with costs.


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