KHETA Vs. HARDWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur dated 24.1.59, whereby he has accepted the appeal of the respondents and modified the decree passed by the Assistant Collector Kotputli on 12.2.56 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record also. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent sued the appellants for a sum of Rs. 900/ -on account of the rent for the Svt. years 2008, 2009, 2010 and part of 2011 and interest therefor on the basis of Qabuliat. The execution of the Qabuliat was admitted by the appellant but he contended that rent for Svt. 2008 had been already paid and that the respondent can recover rent for the remaining period only at the rate fixed by the Settlement department and not according to the agreement. The trial court came to the conclusion that the rent for Svt. 2008 had not been paid and relying on 1956 R.R.D. 202 and 1955 RLW, 1011, decided that the village being a Jagir one and the settlement having taken place the respondents could claim rent only in accordance with the Settlement rates and passed a decree of Rs. 161/15/3 only. In appeal, however, the learned Additional Commissioner holding that the ruling relied upon by the learned trial court being distinguishable from the present case on the ground that in the first case it was not mentioned as to what was the date on which the defendant was admitted to the occupation of the land and in the second case the tenant was in the occupation of the land at the time of the Settlement and no agreement had been arrived at between the parties after the fixation of the rent by the Settlement Department, decreed that as the Settlement Operations had been closed in the year Svt. 2005 and the "Qabuliat had been accepted in Svt. 2007, the case would be governed by the provision of sec. 91(2) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act 1947 under which a person admitted to the occupation of land during the currency of the Settlement or re -settlement was liable to pay the rent as agreed upon between him and the land -holder. The amount of decree was therefore raised to Rs. 825/ - the ad -hoc amount of interest of Rs. 25/ - having been disallowed, but along with further interest at the rate of Rs. /8/ - per month until payment. And hence this second appeal before us.

(3.) The only point involved for determination in this case, therefore, is whether a tenant admitted over a land settled after the closure of the Settlement proceeding would be liable to pay rent at the rate assessed by the Settlement authorities or if would be increased with the agreement entered into between the parties, this being admitted between the parties that the appellants had been admitted over the land, after the closure of the Settlement proceedings, in Svt. 2007 under an agreement stipulating to pay at the rate demanded by the respondents. Sec. 91 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows: - -