KUNJA BEHARI BARMAN Vs. MRITUNJOY PROSAD ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Rules are at the instance of the applicants under S. 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The facts are shortly these : The petitioners are agricultural tenants under the Bhowanipur Wards Estate the proprietors whereof are opposite parties Nos. 1 to 8 represented by the Manager, Court of Wards. The petitioners held two tenancies and rents having fallen into arrears at the instance of the Bhowanipur Wards Estate two certificates for rent were issued and in execution of these certificates the two tenancies were brought to sale on 24th January 1938. Possession through Court was taken on 17th June 1939. Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was inserted by Bengal Act, II [2] of 1942, and came into force by a Notification on 18th June 1942. On 4th June 1943 two applications which have given rise to the present revision cases were filed by the debtors under Section 37A of the Act. These two applications were registered as cases Nos. 625 (S) of 1948 and 626 (S) of 1943 of the Special Debt Settlement Board of Diamond Harbour, The parties impleaded in these applications were the disqualified proprietors, namely opposite parties Nos. 1 to 8, represented by the Manager, Court of Wards. On an objection raised by the Manager, Court of Wards, opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7 who are two of the disqualified proprietors were added as parties to the application, on 7th September 1945. These two opposite parties filed an objection on the ground that they were lessees under the Wards Estate, the leases having become operative on 16th August 1939, that is, before the relevant date mentioned in Section 37A of the Act. On 24th November 1945 the Special Debt Settlement Board dismissed the applications solely on the ground that the certificate -holder who was the auction -purchaser was not in possession on or after relevant date, that is, 20th December 1939. The other objections raised were overruled by the Debt Settlement Board. Against the order of the Debt Settlement Board the petitioners took two appeals to the Appellate Officer. These were numbered as Debt Settlement Board Appeals Nos. 132 of 1945 -1946 and 134 of 1945 -1946. On 27th June 1946 the Appellate Officer allowed these appeals. Against the order of the Appellate Officer four petitions in revision were filed before the District Judge, two of these ware filed by the Court of Wards being numbered as 150 of 1946 and 152 of 1946. Two other petitions which were filed by opposite parties NOS. 6 and 7 were numbered as 151 of 1946 and 153 of 1946. By an order dated 23rd September 1947, the District Judge allowed all these petitions being of the opinion that the leases in favour of opposite parties NOS. 6 and 7 were completed on 16th August 1939 and as such the applications under Section 37A could not be maintained. Against the order of the District Judge the petitioners filed only two petitions in his Hon'ble Court. On these petitions two Rules were issued by Mukherji J., being numbered as Civil Revision cases NOS. 2067 of 1947 and 2068 of 1947. It appears that in the petitions which were filed in this Court the number of the corresponding revision petitions before the District Judge was given respectively as 150 of 1946 and 151 of 1946. The corresponding numbers of the appeals before the Appellate Officer were given as 132 of 1945 -46 and 134 of 1945 -46. It would appear, therefore, that in the petitions filed there was a mistake in not putting down the numbers of all the revision cases which were filed before the District Judge but the number of the appeals which were filed before the Appellate Officer was correctly given in both the petitions. These revision cases came on for hearing before Mukherji J. By his order dated 29th June 1948 the learned Judge allowed these applications. In the course of his judgment it was observed that the real point for decision was not when sanction of the Board of Revenue was obtained to the grant of the two leases in favour of opposite parties NOS. 6 and 7 but when there was a completed agreement for a lease. The Rules were accordingly made absolute and the cases were sent back to the learned District Judge for disposal according to law and in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment. The learned Assistant Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Court of Wards did not then raise any objection that there was an omission in the revision petitions to mention the correct numbers of the corresponding revision petitions before the District Judge. The whole case was heard on the merits and as I have already observed an order in favour of the present petitioners was made by the learned Judge.

(2.) AFTER the matter was received back on remand by an order dated 10th January 1949 the learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the leases in favour of opposite parties NOS. 6 and 7 were not completed before 7th July 1940, that is, still after the relevant date. The learned Additional District Judge, however, went on to observe that the applications of the petitioners before the Debt Settlement Board were barred by limitation, opposite parties Nos. 6 and 7 having been added as parties to the proceedings after the lapse of the period of one year mentioned in Section 37A (2) of the Act. Against the order of the learned Additional District Judge the debtors moved this Court and obtained two Rules which are numbered as 345 and 346 of 1949.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with this contention it is necessary to consider two preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Court of Wards by the learned senior Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the Court of Wards.