BASO BELDAR Vs. PARMESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three applications in revision arising out of a decision given by the 1st Additional Munsif of Bihar refusing to stay certain rent suits instituted in his Court. Civil Revision No. 596 of 1949 is directed against his order, dated 11th July 1949, while Civil Revision no. 350 of 1949 is directed against his order, dated 29bh April 1949 and civil Revision No. 618 of 1949 is against his order, dated 25th July 1949. As all these applications involve a common point for decision, they have been made analogous, and they were placed for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court, who has eventually referred the matter for decision to a Division Bench, and it has accordingly been placed before us for decision. The defendants, who are the petitioners in all these applications, applied for stay on the ground that there were commutation proceedings pending under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act, before the learned Revenue Officer in respect of the lands to which the rent suits relate. In civil Revision no. 596 of 1919 it is stated that an application under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act was filed on 4th December 1947. The learned Revenue Officer passed an order for commutation on 27th May 1948, directing that the order should take effect from 1355 FS. There was an appeal against that order, and in appeal, the Collector set aside the order in question. In the meantime, it appears that the rent suit to which this application relates, was instituted in the Court of the learned Munsif on 30th September 1943, relating to a claim for a bhauli rent fop 1354 to 1355 FS. It is contended by the defendants petitioners that the hearing of this suit should be stayed until the application for commutation has been finally heard and decided by the learned Revenue Officer before whom the proceedings are pending. The facts of the other two applications, civil Revision No. 350 of 1949 and civil Revision No. 618 of 1949, are identical. In those cases the petitions for commutation were filed on 14th September 1946. The applications were heard and allowed by the learned Revenue Officer on 20th May 1948, directing that the commutated rent should come into operation from 1365 FS. There was an appeal against this to the Collector who set aside the order of commutation as being void, and the case, accordingly, went back to the learned Revenue Officer for reconsideration of the matter. In the meantime, the rent suits to which these applications relate, were filed before the learned Munsif on 80th September 1948. The claim in these suits also is in respect of the years 1354 and 1355 FS. The learned Munaif has considered the applications for stay and has rejected the applications on the grounds given in his judgment. He has unnecessarily encumbered his order with reference to Section 10, Civil P. C., which has no application to the cases at all. The application for stay, if at all, can be entertained only under Section 151. Civil P. C., and in exercising his discretion under Section 151, Civil P, C., the Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the applications. In revision it would not be open to this Court to interfere unless it holds that there was any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of that jurisdiction, or there was any serious miscarriage of justice. In applications for stay of this character, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that the applicant is necessarily entitled to a stay of the rent suit pending before the civil Court merely because there is an application under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act pending before the Revenue Officer. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cage whether the stay should or should not be granted. It is true that our attention has been drawn to several cases in which applications for stay had been allowed by this Court as well as by sub-ordinate Courts. But there are also decisions to the contrary, and I do not see that there is any real point of principle Involved in this matter. It is true that the tenant is entitled to make as application for commutation of rent under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act, and if that application is allowed, it may well be within the discretion of the Revenue Officer to direct as to the period from which that commutation has to take effect. But there is no reason why the landlord, who has instituted his (suit?) for rent because of the tenant's failure to divide the produce as required by the law, should be compelled to wait until those Section 40-proceedingasare decided. The proceedings under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act may be held up for various reasons. In that case it would be useless to hold up the decision of the rent suits pending in the civil Courts, which ought to be expeditiously disposed of. I do not find that in these oases there has been any material illegality or irregularity in the exercise of his discretion by the learned Munsif, nor do I find that there is any case of miscarriage of justice. That being so, I see no reason to interfere with the orders in revision. THESE applications must be, accordingly, dismissed but in the circum stances, there will be no order for coats.