Skip to content


Rani Abhoyeswari Debi Vs. Bangshiram Rajbanshi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal102,53Ind.Cas.52
AppellantRani Abhoyeswari Debi
RespondentBangshiram Rajbanshi
Cases ReferredShahzada Mahamed Bohimmooddeen v. Rajha Mohun Mondul
Excerpt:
bengal landlord and tenant procedure act (viii b. c. of 1869), section 14 29 - notice of enhancement of rent, period of operation of--suit to recover rent at enhanced rate, when maintainable. - .....i am unable to agree with this decision. what section 14 requires is that not less than three months' notice should be given if the landlord intends to enhance the rent of the under-tenant or the raiyat. i cannot say that the notice which gives over nine months is a notice which fails to comply with the provisions of that section, the view i take is also confirmed by the decision of this court in the case of shahzada mahamed bohimmooddeen v. rajha mohun mondul 6 w, r. act x rulings, 96,. that was a decision under section 13 of act x of 1859, corresponding to section 14 of act viii of 1869, and their lordships remarked that the object of section 13 was that a suit for enhancement should not be brought without previous due notice, 'but it does not follow that when a notice under that.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff in this suit sought to recover arrears of rent for the year 1321 B. S. at the rate on which the defendant had been paying for the previous years and for the year 1322 B. S. at an enhanced rate. There was also a prayer for ejectment, but it is not now pressed. The claim for enhanced rent was based on Section 14 of Act VIII (B. C.) of 1869, which is the rent law in force in the district of Goalpara. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal dismissed the claim for enhancement of rent on the ground that the notice had not been duly served under that section. It appears from the notice that the plaintiff originally intended to give notice of enhancement which would take effect from 1321 B. S. The notice was filed in the collector's Office on the 27th Pous 1320. If it could have been served before the end of that month, it would have been effective to enable the plaintiff to sue for enhancement of rent for the year 1321, But, as a matter of fact, the notice was not served until 6th Chaitra 1320, that is, wore than two months later. Accordingly the plaintiff treated it as a notice for enhancement sommencing with the year 1322 and has brought this suit within three months of the termination of that year in compliance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. The lower Appellate Court held that this notice was not in accordance with Section 14 of the Act. It held that when the notice for enhancement of rent was for the year 1321 only and not being served so as to give effect during that year, the notice was spent and had no legal effect thereafter. I am unable to agree with this decision. What Section 14 requires is that not less than three months' notice should be given if the landlord intends to enhance the rent of the under-tenant or the raiyat. I cannot say that the notice which gives over nine months is a notice which fails to comply with the provisions of that section, The view I take is also confirmed by the decision of this Court in the case of Shahzada Mahamed Bohimmooddeen v. Rajha Mohun Mondul 6 W, R. Act X Rulings, 96,. That was a decision under Section 13 of Act X of 1859, corresponding to Section 14 of Act VIII of 1869, and their Lordships remarked that the object of Section 13 was that a suit for enhancement should not be brought without previous due notice, 'But it does not follow that when a notice under that Section is once given, the suit for enhancement of rent for the next year should be brought within the same year and that the suit for enhancement of rent cannot be brought 2 or 3 years afterwards.' In that case the notice was served at the end of the year 1267 and the enhancement of rent was claimed for the year 1270, In the lower Appellate Court, the appeal was decreed on this preliminary ground only. As I differ from the learned Subordinate Judge, his judgment and decree are reversed and the case is remanded for re-hearing of the appeal on the other points that arose in the appeal before him.

2. Costs will abide the result.


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