SAJJAN SINGH Vs. BHAGMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant's second appeal against a concurrent decision of the courts below which decreed the respondents' suit for arrears of rent for Svt. year 1952-53 amounting to Rs. 100/ - on the basis of an alleged verbal agreement. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the courts below completely ignored the provisions of sec. 4 read with sec. 97 and 98 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and acted illegally in decreeing the claim for Rs. 1000/ - on account of arrears of rent for Svt. year 1952-53. It was pointed out that on 4-1-56 and 31-5-57 when the learned Assistant Collector and the learned Commissioner respectively decided the suit and the appeal, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act had come into force and the respondents could not recover as arrears of rent more than three times of the land revenue as provided in sec. 98 of the Act. It was also urged that any agreement between the parties entitling the plaintiff respondent to get more than this amount being void it could not be enforced against the defendant appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent however urged that sec. 4 was restricted only to such rights and liabilities as accrued to a tenant under Secs. 15 to 35 of Chapter III of the Act and did not apply to any other valid agreement entered into by the parties about the payment of a certain amount of rent.

(2.) WE have read sec. 4 of the Act which runs as below: - "every agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act which purports or would operate to restrict a tenant from enforcing or exercising any right conferred on or secured to him by this Act, shall be void to that extent. " Reading between the lines this section does not appear to restrict only those rights and liabilities which accrue to a tenant under Chapter III. It is an omnibus section and enacted with a special purpose, viz, to render void all agreements whether made before or after the commencement of the Act purporting to restrict a tenants rights conferred on or secured to him under this Act. An amount of rent payable by a tenant is in the nature of a right given to him under the Act. A similar view was held in RRD 1956 page 202. The maximum amount of rent which can be recovered from him is given under sec. 97 and 98 of the Act which lays down that after the enforcement of the Tenancy Act no body could recover more than three times the land revenue by way of rent. The courts below in our opinion did not take into consideration the aforesaid provisions of law at the time of disposing of this case and their decision being contrary to law cannot therefore be supported. The record before us does not show what amount of revenue was payable by the respondent, otherwise we would have examined the claim of the parties in that context. In the circumstances we allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the courts below and remand the case back to the court of first instance with the direction that it should determine the amount of rent payable by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of sec. 97 and 98 of the Act. .