Skip to content


Satyendra Nath Thakur Vs. Nilkantha Singha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR21Cal383
AppellantSatyendra Nath Thakur
RespondentNilkantha Singha
Cases ReferredIshan Chunder Chowdhry v. Chunder Kant Boy
Excerpt:
sale for arrears of rent - sale on basis of decree on compromise--auction-purchaser, title of--liability of purchaser for rent accruing due after his purchase, but before confirmation of sale--effect of compromise as against purchaser--rent, accrual of. - .....fell due; and second, that the courts below were wrong in granting the defendant abatement of rent in respect of 57 bighas, when the former tenant had by a solehnama agreed to pay rent for the whole area of 4,300 bighas, and not to claim remission of rent on any account whatever.2. we think the appellant is entitled to succeed on both these grounds. as to the first ground, it is quite true that the title of the defendant, the auction-purchaser of the tenure in respect of which rent is claimed, became perfected only on the date of the confirmation of sale under section 316 of the code of civil procedure. but the whole of the instalment in question fell due after that date, and rent should, in our opinion, ordinarily be regarded not as accruing from day to day, but as falling due only.....
Judgment:

Banerjee, J.

1. In this appeal, which arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, two grounds have been urged on behalf of the plaintiff, appellant,--first, that as the title of the defendant who purchased the tenure at a sale in execution of a decree for rent had become perfected by confirmation of the sale before the date when the Assin instalment of rent for the year 1296 fell due, the Courts below ought to have decreed the claim for that instalment in full, instead of giving the plaintiff a decree only for a part thereof which was proportionate to the time intervening between the date of confirmation of the sale and the date when the instalment fell due; and second, that the Courts below were wrong in granting the defendant abatement of rent in respect of 57 bighas, when the former tenant had by a solehnama agreed to pay rent for the whole area of 4,300 bighas, and not to claim remission of rent on any account whatever.

2. We think the appellant is entitled to succeed on both these grounds. As to the first ground, it is quite true that the title of the defendant, the auction-purchaser of the tenure in respect of which rent is claimed, became perfected only on the date of the confirmation of sale under Section 316 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the whole of the instalment in question fell due after that date, and rent should, in our opinion, ordinarily be regarded not as accruing from day to day, but as falling due only at stated times according to the contract of tenancy, or the general law, in the absence of such contract, as laid down in Section 53 of the Bengal Tenancy Act It was argued for the respondent that if this view is adopted it may go very hard against the purchaser of a tenure, who would be made liable for rent due in respect of the whole of the period of time when he has had possession only for a part of that period, and it may be for a very small part. The answer to this objection is that the purchaser can always protect himself when making his purchase by paying for the property only so much as is equivalent to its value, regard being had to the liability with which it is burdened. In support of this view we may refer to the case of Chatraput Singh v. Grindra Chunder Roy I.L.R. 6 Cal. 389.

3. The learned vakil for the respondent referred to Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act as showing that the view taken by the Courts below is correct; but that section has no application to a case like the present, for two reasons : first, because by Section 2, Clause (d), of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 36 does not apply to execution sales; and, secondly, because the apportionment of rent that that section contemplates is one following the transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive the rent, and not the transfer of the interest of the person bound to pay it.

4. Then, as regards the second ground, the former tenant, by the compromise, dated the 24th February 1887, agreed that rent should be paid in respect of 4,300 bighas, and that no remissions of rent should be claimed on any account whatever. The Lower Appellate Court has held that that compromise was a valid and binding transaction, and that being so, the present defendant must be held to be bound by it. In support of this view we may refer to the case of Ishan Chunder Chowdhry v. Chunder Kant Boy 13 C.L.R. 55.

5. The result then is that the decrees of the Courts below will be modified by allowing the plaintiff to recover the whole of the Assin instalment of 1296, and to recover rent upon the whole area of 4,300 bighas, with interest and cesses on the amount allowed.

6. The appellant is entitled to his costs in all the Courts.


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