HARENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. BHAKKUL MONDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question which has often come up before the Courts but on which the decisions are not uniform and are clearly not wholly reconcilable. The question relates to recovery of rent and it arises when in the relevant document there is mention of a rent in kind along with a money value for the same, the point being whether the decree should be for the rent in kind, i.e., for its market value at the date when it had actually fallen due, or whether it should be for the money value as mentioned in the document. Usually, such cases have arisen upon old pattas and/or kabuliats, at the dates whereof the value of paddy and/or straw was extremely low and generally, therefore, the landlord has insisted on payment in kind or its equivalent money value at the date of its falling into arrears while the tenant has claimed the right to pay the money equivalent as mentioned in the lease. This controversy has not always been easy to determine and it is not surprising, therefore, that the judicial decisions on the point do not appear to be wholly reconcilable. One thing, however, is clear that the question has almost always been treated as one of intention-the original intention of the parties as appearing primarily from the document of lease and naturally, therefore, the construction of that document has been held to be of prime importance. This was pointed out by me in one of the recent cases where I had occasion to consider this question, viz., the case of Dolgobinda Kower v. Abdul Rejak Mondal and Ors. S.A. 953 of 1948 decided on June, 20, 1952, and I have heard nothing in this case which would warrant a different approach.

(2.) Turning now to the facts of the present case, the suit is one for recovery of arrears of rent (with the usual cesses) for the period 1350 to 1353 B.S. of a jama of 4 bighas 16 cottahs of land. In the cadastral survey khatian, ex. (1), the jama is recorded as mokrari raiyati with occupancy rights bearing a rental of Rs. 8-10 as. in cash and 1 ari-6 katis of paddy, there being no mention of the money value of the paddy in the settlement records. The cadastral survey khatian, however, mentions a registered patta, dated April 1, 1891, as the document creating the jama in suit. This patta is ex. B in the present case and there is no dispute now that the tenancy in suit is governed by this document, ex. B. In the patta, ex. B, which is described as a mourashi mokrari patta, the annual rent is mentioned as Rs. 8-10 as in cash and 1 ari 6 katis or fourteen katis of paddy valued at Rs. 3-8, the total being Rs. 12-2 as.

(3.) It will be convenient to set out here the relevant part of the patta, ex. B, which runs, inter alia, as follows: