KASHIPRASAD Vs. WASUDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal. The claim relates to rent, or, as it is now alleged in the argument before me, mesne profits for the years 1957-58 to 1959-60. The facts giving rise to this litigation are not at all in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows: The land in suit is survey No. 215/1, measuring 10 acres, 7 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 17-12-0, of village Kurhar, taluq Chandur, district Amravati. It is admittedly owned by one Shantabai who made a contract of lease for five years with the plaintiff on 7-3-1953. She executed another contract of lease in favour of the plaintiff, dated 22-3-1955. The fact of the two contracts and their being in force is not challenged in this litigation.

(2.) The plaintiff having obtained a lease in his favour in this manner covering a period from 1953-54 to 1964-65, sublet the suit land to the defendant in the year 1956-57 on a rental of Rs. 125. The defendant continued to cultivate the land in the same capacity for the subsequent three years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. In spite of cultivation for the three subsequent years, the defendant did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovering Rs. 375 and interest as rent for the years 1957-58 to 1959-60. The only defence raised was that the defendant was unaware that one Shantabai was the owner. He considered the plaintiff as the owner and took a tenancy from him. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was that of landlord and tenant. The defendant is not liable to pay more than ten times the assessment as rent under the Leases Act and more than four times the assessment as rent under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.

(3.) On these pleadings, the learned trial Judge awarded Rs. 375 as the agreed rent for the three years but refused interest thereon. The defendant filed an appeal against this decree in the District Court. The learned District Judge holds that the subletting to the defendant made him a person in lawful cultivation of the land and, as such, a deemed tenant under section 6 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 hereinafter called the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. Accordingly, the learned Judge confirmed the decree for Rs. 125 for the first year of cultivation, namely 1957-58, but awarded rent at the rate of four times the assessment for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. As the rental was Rs. 17-12-0, the rent or compensation allowed for the last two years was at the rate of Rs, 71 per year. Being aggrieved by the difference of Rs. 108 caused by the approach of the learned District Judge, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.