Skip to content


Jogendra Nath Maitra Vs. Gopal Chandra Saha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.188
AppellantJogendra Nath Maitra
RespondentGopal Chandra Saha
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 29(1) - 'continuous period of not less than three years,' meaning of. - .....years 1321, 1322 and 1323, but the courts below have not allowed the plaintiff's claim at the higher rate for the year 1324 upon a wrong construction of section 29(1) of the bengal tenancy act. 'the continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which the rent is claimed' does not mean the period for which rents are claimed collectively in the suit, but means the period in respect of which the rent is payable as a separate cause of action. the point is made clearer, if it is considered what would be the effect if a separate suit had been brought for the rent for the year 1324, as the plaintiff could have done. clearly, in those circumstances, upon the findings he would have been entitled to a higher rent. the decree of the lower appellate court.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. The defendant paid rent at the higher rate for the years 1321, 1322 and 1323, but the Courts below have not allowed the plaintiff's claim at the higher rate for the year 1324 upon a wrong construction of Section 29(1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 'The continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the period for which the rent is claimed' does not mean the period for which rents are claimed collectively in the suit, but means the period in respect of which the rent is payable as a separate cause of action. The point is made clearer, if it is considered what would be the effect if a separate suit had been brought for the rent for the year 1324, as the plaintiff could have done. Clearly, in those circumstances, upon the findings he would have been entitled to a higher rent. The decree of the lower Appellate Court will be set aside so far as it refers to the rent of 1324, and in lieu thereof there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the rent of that year at the higher rate claimed by him. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court.


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