PIR MOHAMMAD Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the defendants is directed against the judgment and order of the Munsif, Third Court, Arrah, exercising Small Cause Court powers, decreeing in part the suit of the plaintiffs opposite party for arrears of rent of a house from the ist of November 1957, to the 31st of October, 1960, at the rate of twelve annas "per month. The land over which the house stands, according to Ext. 'Da', a certified copy of the Khatian, was ghairmazrua malik land of the plaintiffs. There was a litigation between the parties with respect to this land and the house which ultimately came to this Court in Second Appeal No. 706 of 1948. The appeal was, however, disposed of on compromise according to which, on payment of a sum of Rs. 175/- by way of premium by the petitioners to the plaintiffs, the petitioners were recognised as permanent tenants of the land and the house standing thereon, subject to payment of rent at twelve annas per month. The certified copy of the order sheet of the High Court recording the compromise is Ext. 'Ba' in this case. Subsequently, the opposite parties filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners in which a contest was made by the petitioners on the ground that the suit was governed by the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act and as such, it was not triable by a Small Cause Court Judge. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that there was no agricultural land in dispute, nor was any tenancy created under the Bihar Tenancy Act; and, in that view of the matter, he repelled the contention of the petitioners and decreed the suit. A civil revision, being Civil Revision No. 851 of 1951, was filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioners against the judgment and order of the Small Cause Court Judge, but the same was dismissed. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the present suit for recovery of arrears of rent numbered as S.C.C. Suit No. 147 of 1960, out of which this application arises. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and since after the vesting of the estate of the plaintiffs in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, they were not entitled to realise any rent for the land and the building standing thereon. It was pleaded that since after the vesting of the estate the petitioners had been paying rent to the State of Bihar, and, in support of that contention, they filed a rent receipt, Ext. 'Aa' in this case. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that in the previous S.C.C. suit it was held that no tenancy was created in respect of any agricultural land and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for arrears of rent. On behalf of the plaintiffs, however, it was contended that, under Section 5 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, they were entitled to receive the rent of the building in question, notwithstanding the vesting of their estate in the State of Bihar. This contention was accepted by the learned Small Cause Court Judge and a decree for arrears of rent was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim for interest was, however, disallowed as there was no agreement for paying the same. Being thus aggrieved, the present revision application has been filed by the defendants.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has contended, in support of this application, that by the compromise order aforesaid the petitioners became permanent tenants, not only with respect to the building, but also with respect to the land on which the same stood and they were, therefore, permanent tenants under the plaintiffs, who were only entitled to realise the stipulated rent and had no concern with the land or the building, beyond realisation of rent. It was submitted that, after the vesting of the estate of the plaintiffs in the State of Bihar, the right of the plaintiffs to realise the rent vested in the State and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue for recovery of rent. On the other hand, Counsel for the opposite parties has contended that notwithstanding the vesting of their estate in the State of Bihar, the plaintiffs' interest was left untouched under Section 5 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and they were, therefore, within their legal rights to institute the suit for recovery of rent.

(3.) In support of his contention, Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Section 4, so far as is relevant for the purposes of the present case, runs thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, on the publication of the notification, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, or Sub-section (t) or (2) of Section 3-A the following consequences shall ensue, namely: (a) Such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor or tenure-holder in any building or part of a building comprised in such estate or tenure and used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure, and his interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, hats, bazars, mela and ferries and all other sairati interests as also his interest in all sub-soil including any rights in mines and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered, or whether being worked or not, inclusive of such rights of a lessee of mines and minerals, comprised in such estate or tenure-(other than the interests of rayats or under-rayats) shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interests in such estate or tenure, other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act. (b) All rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. * * * * * According to Clause (a), therefore, the estate of the plaintiffs, including their interests in respect of matters enumerated therein, vested absolutely in the State and the plaintiffs ceased to have any interest in such estate other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act. According to Clause (b), all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in the estate became payable to the State, and not to the outgoing proprietor on or after the date of its vesting. Under the ab ove provisions, therefore, there is no doubt that, on the vesting of the estate of the plaintiffs in the State of Bihar the interests of the plaintiffs therein including their right to realise rent, vested in the State and the plaintiffs could not claim any payment of such rent accruing due since after the date of the vesting. It is an admitted fact in the case that the estate of the plaintiffs vested ia the State of Bihar on the 1st of January, 1956, and the period for which the claim for arrears of rent has been made is subsequent to that vesting. The plaintiffs, ordinarily, therefore, could not claim to recover the arrears of rent for the period for which the claim was made, unless their right to realise the rent was expressly saved by or under the Act.