RAMKIRIT GOALA Vs. MAHESH PRASHAD HALWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, V.A.D., Silchar by which the order of the trial court decreeing Plaintiff 's claim for compensation was reversed and Plaintiff 's suit dismissed in its entirety.

(2.) THE suit was for ejectment and rent. The claim both for ejectment and rent was under Section 58 , Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act. In the plaint there was an alternative prayer for compensation to the extent of Rs. 30 for use and occupation of the land if the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. The trial court found that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute, but no agreement of tenancy was proved. The claim both for ejectment and rent was disallowed, but the claim for compensation was decreed. On appeal the learned Addl. District Judge held that as the suit was under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act the alternative claim for compensation for use and occupation could not be entertained and therefore a decree for compensation for use and occupation could not be validly passed in favour of the Plaintiff.