Skip to content


Ferasat Ali Mullik Vs. Srimati Priamboda Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in69Ind.Cas.414
AppellantFerasat Ali Mullik
RespondentSrimati Priamboda Devi
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 29, application of - non-transferable occupancy holding, sale of--recognition by landlord on purchaser agreeing to pay increased rent--increased, rent, recovery of--application of section 29. - .....rent of the holding was rs. 1212 0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of section 29 of the bengal tenancy act and, therefore, not enforceable under the law. the matter stands thus : the defendant appears to have purchased a non- transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of rs. 12-120. the plaintiff-landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of rs. 18-11-0 and, upon these terms, the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. thus, it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant bat the defendant whose position by virtue of his.....
Judgment:

Ghose, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The defendant contends that the rent is not payable by him at the rate of R3. 18-11-0 claimed by the plaintiff, because the rent of the holding was Rs. 1212 0, and that, even assuming that he has agreed to pay an increased rate of rent, it is in contravention of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and, therefore, not enforceable under the law. The matter stands thus : The defendant appears to have purchased a non- transferable occupancy holding which bore a rent of Rs. 12-120. The plaintiff-landlord refused to recognise the defendant as a purchaser and in consequence she would have been entitled to khas possession; in order to retain possession of this holding, the defendant agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 18-11-0 and, upon these terms, the landlord allowed him to remain on the land. Thus, it is not a question of enhancement of rent of the original tenant bat the defendant whose Position by virtue of his purchase was only that of a trespasser as against the landlord took a new settlement after his purchase at the rate of rent now sued for. It is also contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant; that, as the plaintiff recognised the defendant as the purchaser of the holding, the defendant was relegated to the position of the old tenant and the agreement to pay an increased rent would bring into operation the provisions of Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It seems to ma that there is an obvious fallacy in this contention because the consideration for the recognition of the defendant as a tenant was that he agreed to pay the rent now sued for. If the defendant had not entered into that agreement, the plaintiff would have been entitled to khas possession of the land treating the defendant as a trespasser. The appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with' costs.


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