Skip to content


Chandi Charan Law Vs. Meher Banu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1925)ILR52Cal910
AppellantChandi Charan Law
RespondentMeher Banu
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - suit for back rents on the basis of settlement proceedings--bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), sections 105, 110. - .....settlement of fair rents in respect of the taluk and the four jotes on the ground of additional rent for additional area the settlement officer has given an increased rent for the increased area. the landlord has now sued for rent of the original area plus the back rents for the additional area which has been found to be in the defendants' possession by the settlement officer. the lower courts have allowed the plaintiff's claim so far as regards the rent for the original area, but have disallowed his claim for additional rent for the additional area on the ground that as the plaintiff had proceeded under section. 105 of the bengal tenancy act, the increased rental took effect from the beginning of the agricultural year next after the date of the' decision and that therefore his claim.....
Judgment:

Cuming and Chakravarti, JJ.

1. These five appeals raise a point of some importance. The plaintiff in all the five appeals is the landlord and he sues for arrears of rent of 1323, 1324, 1325 and 1326 B. S. in respect of a certain taluk and four jotes. The suit for rent was brought under the terms of a kabuliyat for additional rent for an additional area which had been found in certain settlement proceedings under v Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It would appear that there were certain settlement proceedings under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act and during the course of those proceedings the landlord applied under Section 105 for settlement of fair rents in respect of the taluk and the four jotes on the ground of additional rent for additional area The Settlement Officer has given an increased rent for the increased area. The landlord has now sued for rent of the original area plus the back rents for the additional area which has been found to be in the defendants' possession by the Settlement Officer. The lower Courts have allowed the plaintiff's claim so far as regards the rent for the original area, but have disallowed his claim for additional rent for the additional area on the ground that as the plaintiff had proceeded under Section. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the increased rental took effect from the beginning of the agricultural year next after the date of the' decision and that therefore his claim for additional rent for the additional area for the period previous to the decision was not sustainable.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant landlord has contended that even though under the terms of Section 110, the additional rent would be realizable from the agricultural year next after the date of the decision of the Settlement Officer, still under the terms of his contract he is entitled to additional rent for the additional area for the three years preceding the date of the Settlement Officer's decision and that the Settlement Officer's decision is no bar to the plaintiff's suing for additional rents. We are, however, of opinion that the decision of the learned District Judge is correct. Section 110 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that 'when a rent is settled by a Revenue Officer under this chapter, it shall take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year next after the date of the decision fixing the rent'.

4. Now, it was open to the plaintiff to have waited until the fined publication of the record-of-rights, and, he could, then, three months after the final publication, have brought a suit on the contract. He did not however, choose to do so. He elected a remedy which was also open to him, namely, to apply under Section 105 and having done so, he is bound by the terms of Section 110 which provides that such settlement of rent shall take effect from the beginning of the agricultural year next after the date of the decision fixing the rent; bat having proceeded under Section 105, it was not open to him to sue on the contract for the back rents of the additional area. This being so, the decision of the learned District Judge is correct and these five appeals are dismissed.

5. As the respondents do not appear we do not make any order as to costs of these appeals.


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