Skip to content


Kristadhan Ghose Vs. Golam Mandal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in37Ind.Cas.862
AppellantKristadhan Ghose
RespondentGolam Mandal
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b. c. of 1885), section 29 - landlord and tenant--amalgamation of tenancies, whether changes their incidents--enhancement of rent--pleadings--appeal, fresh basis for claim, whether can be adopted in. - .....is contended before us that there ought to have been a finding as to whether the landlord and the tenant intended by this amalgamation to create a new tenancy. this was never the case of the appellant in the courts below. in the first court, his case was that the tenant was a non-occupancy-raiyat and that, therefore, he was liable to pay at the rate at which he had been paying for more than three years and that failing; his contention was that he was entitled to realise rent at the enhanced rate under proviso (1) to section 29.4. both the grounds failed on the courts deciding first, that he was an occupancy-raiyat, and secondly, that there was no written document. it was never the case of the plaintiff that a new tenancy had been created or that the parties had intended to create a new.....
Judgment:

1. This is an instance of the various subterfuges that have been devised to evade the salutary provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

2. Two occupancy holdings were amalgamated in 1301 B. S., without any registered document, the lands remaining the same but the consolidated jama being an enhancement of more than 2 annas in the rupee on the old jama. The lower Courts have given a decree on the old state of things.

3. It is contended before us that there ought to have been a finding as to whether the landlord and the tenant intended by this amalgamation to create a new tenancy. This was never the case of the appellant in the Courts below. In the first Court, his case was that the tenant was a non-occupancy-raiyat and that, therefore, he was liable to pay at the rate at which he had been paying for more than three years and that failing; his contention was that he was entitled to realise rent at the enhanced rate under proviso (1) to Section 29.

4. Both the grounds failed on the Courts deciding first, that he was an occupancy-raiyat, and secondly, that there was no written document. It was never the case of the plaintiff that a new tenancy had been created or that the parties had intended to create a new tenancy. All the facts point to the conclusion that the old tenancy was to continue and that all the incidents of the tenancy were to remain unchanged.

5. In this view of the case, there is no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.


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