Skip to content


The Hon'ble Maharaja Ranjit Sinha Vs. Abdur Rahim Khan Chowdhury (04.04.1918 - CALHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal1004(1),45Ind.Cas.190
AppellantThe Hon'ble Maharaja Ranjit Sinha
RespondentAbdur Rahim Khan Chowdhury
Cases ReferredBhobani Nath Chuckerbutty v. Land Acquisition Deputy Collector of Bogra
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), sections 52, 195 - patnidar, whether can apply for abatement of rent. - fletcher, j.1. this is an appeal by the defendant, the zemindar, against the decision of the learned district judge of rajshabye, affirming the decision of the learned sub-ordinate judge of the same place. the suit was brought for abatement of rent by a patnidar in respect of 75 bighas of land oompulsorily acquired by the government under the provisions of the land acquisition act. the suit was instituted for abatement of rent and also for abatement of cesses'. in the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff applied to the learned subordinate judge for leave to withdraw his claim for cesses, with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. the first court allowed that and granted an abatement of the rent. the defendant appealed to the learned district judge and the learned.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant, the Zemindar, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshabye, affirming the decision of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of the same place. The suit was brought for abatement of rent by a patnidar in respect of 75 bighas of land oompulsorily acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The suit was instituted for abatement of rent and also for abatement of cesses'. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for leave to withdraw his claim for cesses, with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The first Court allowed that and granted an abatement of the rent. The defendant appealed to the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge decided as follows: First of all, with regard to the lease granted to the plaintiff to withdraw his claim for cesses with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the learned Judge held that no appeal lay but if there was a right of appeal, he agreed with the view of the learned Subordinate Judge granting liberty to withdraw the suit. On the second point, the learned District Judge came to the same conclusion as the learned Judge of the Court of first instance.

2. The only point pressed in the present appeal is this. The learned Judges in the lower Courts have proceeded under the provisions of Section 52 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and on the principle there defined, Section 52 says that every tenant' shall be entitled to apply. A patnidar is a tenant and so prima facie he is entitled to make an application under Section 52. It is said, however, that Section 195 of the 'Act prevents Section 52 from applying to the case of a pitnidar on the ground that Clause (e) of that section says that nothing contained in the Bengal Tenancy Act shall affect any enactment relating to patni-tenures in so far as it relates to those tenures. Section 52 does not affect any enactment relating to patni-tenures. It is quite clear, in my view, that the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge is right. It is suggested that that view is opposed to the decision of this Court reported as Bhobani Nath Chuckerbutty v. Land Acquisition Deputy Collector of Bogra 7 C.W.N.130, There is nothing in that decision to sugggst that Section 52 does not apply to a tenant who is a patnidar. The appeal, fails and is dismissed with costs.

Shamsul Huda, J.

3. I agree.


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