BALMUKUND RAMPRATAP Vs. DEMAJI SURYABHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this civil revision application shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision Application No. 557 of 1959. Both these civil revision applications raise a common question of some importance. In both the cases, the landlords have filed suits for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) CIVIL Suit No. 55 of 1959 out of which arises C.R.A. No. 556 of 1959 was for recovery of rent of two fields Nos. 46 and 38/2 of mouza Sukali, tahsil Murtkapur. Field No. 46 has a land revenue of Rs. 28 fixed and field No. 38/2, Rs. 15. The plaintiffs who cannot now under law claim more than ten times the amount of the yearly land revenue as their rent have confined their claim to that amount in both the suits. Thus in respect of field No. 46, they have claimed rent at ten times the annual land revenue (28X10 = 280) for three years, namely, 1955 -56, 1956 -57 and 1957 -58, that is to say, Rs. 840. In respect of field No. 38/2, they have claimed rent at ten times the annual land revenue (15X10 = 150) for the two years 1956 -57 and 1957 -58, that is to say Rs. 300. Thus their total claim in the suit was Rs. 1,140 as rent for fields Nos. 46 and 38/2.

(3.) IN both the suits, the plaintiffs were met with a plea under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. According to the defendant in the civil suit out of which C.R.A. No, 556 of 1959 arises, for part of the period for which the plaintiffs claimed rent, the plaintiffs had dispossessed the defendant and, therefore, they were not entitled to claim rent. The defendant further alleged that he approached the revenue authorities for restoration of possession of the fields to him. It is also not in dispute that the landlords have filed a counter application for ejectment before the revenue authorities. In the civil suit out of which C.R.A. No. 557 of 1959 arises there is no proceeding pending before the revenue authorities between the parties. In that suit, the defendant pleaded that the full rent had been paid.