SUNDAR KRISHTA SARKAR Vs. SM MALTI MANJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent by deft. 1 from the judgment of Shearer, J. It arises out of a suit for recovery of cash rent for the years 1350 to 1353 Fasli. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 229/1/- per year. The courts below decreed the suit & on second appeal to this Court the decrees of the courts below have been affirmed.

(2.) The facts relevant to the point for decision are as follows: Originally the defts. were bhaoli tenants & the rent was payable wholly in kind. They applied for commutation of rent under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act, & Rent Commutation officer fixed the rent at Rs. 179/5/-. In the rent commutation proceedings all the landlords were impleaded & the order was passed in the presence of the 16 annas landlords. Only the plffs. who are 6 annas co-sharer landlords, appealed against the order of the Rent Commutation officer to the Collector under Section 40, Clause (6), Bihar Tenancy Act, without impleading the remaining 10 annas co-sharer landlords in the appeal. The Collector set aside the order of the Rent Commutation Officer & fixed the rent at Rs. 229/1/- by his order dated 7-2-1945. While the appeal was pending before the Collector, the tenants who are the defts, in the present suit, applied for reduction of the rent fixed by the Rent Commutation officer under Section 112A(1)(c), Bihar Tenancy Act, & the rent was reduced from Rs. 179/5 to Rs. 168/1/9. In the present suit the plff. claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 229/1- as fixed by the Collector. The defts. resisted the suit on the ground that the rent having been reduced in a proceeding under Section 112A (1) (c), Bihar Tenancy Act, the plffs. were not entitled to claim rent at the rate fixed by the Collector. The plffs. on the other hand, alleged that the order passed by the Rent Reduction Officer in the proceeding under Section 112A (1) (c) was ineffective because the foundation of his order was the order of the Rent Commutation officer which had been reversed by the Collector on appeal. They asserted that they were entitled to claim the rent at the rate fixed by the Collector. The courts below, as well as Shearer, J., accepted the plffs. contention & the suit was accordingly decreed at the rate of rent fixed by the Collector.

(3.) The point for our consideration is whether the order passed by the Collector fixing rent at Rs. 229/1/ is with or without jurisdiction, the defts. appeal must fail.