Skip to content


Ferasat Ali Mulik Vs. Priamboda Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Cal544
AppellantFerasat Ali Mulik
RespondentPriamboda Devi
Excerpt:
- .....of the holding was rs. 12-12-0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of section 29 of the bengal tenancy act and therefore not enforceable under the law. the matter stands thus : - the defendant appears to have purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of rs. 12-12-0. the plaintiff landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of rs. 18-11-0 and upon these terms the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. thus it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant, but the defendant, whose position by virtue of his purchase.....
Judgment:

Ghose, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defendant contends that the rent is not payable by him at the rate of Rs. 18-11-0 claimed by the plaintiff, because the rent of the holding was Rs. 12-12-0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and therefore not enforceable under the law. The matter stands thus : - The defendant appears to have purchased a non-transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of Rs. 12-12-0. The plaintiff landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 18-11-0 and upon these terms the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. Thus it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant, but the defendant, whose position by virtue of his purchase was only that of a trespasser as against the landlord took a new settlement after his purchase at the rate of rent, now sued for. It is also contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that as the plaintiff recognised the defendant as the purchaser of the holding the defendant was relegated to the position of the old tenant, and the agreement to pay an increased rent would bring into operation the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It seems to me that there is an obvious fallacy in this contention because the consideration for the recognition of the defendant as a tenant was that he agreed to pay the rent now sued for. If the defendant had not entered into that agreement the plaintiff would have been entitled to khas possession of the land treating the defendant as a trespasser. The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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