NABIN CHANDRA SHAHA Vs. KULA CHANDRA DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit brought for enhancement of rent under Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was dismissed by the Munsif, and that decree of dismissal was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Caspersz expressed his agreement with the lower Appellate Court. It is from this judgment of Mr. Justice Caspersz that the present appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The grounds on which the plaintiffs based their claim for enhancement were, first, that the rate of rent paid by the defendants was below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar description and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighbouring villages, and that there was no sufficient reason for their holding at so low a rate; and, secondly, that there has been a rise in the average local prices of staple food-crops during the currency of the existing rent. Both these grounds, in the opinion of the lower courts, the plaintiffs failed to establish. I will deal with the second ground first, and will consider whether the Courts have committed an error in the finding that the plaintiffs had not made good their claim to enhancement on the ground of a rise in the average local prices of the staple food- crops. The solution of this question is to be found in Section 39 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. By Section 32 of the Act, it is provided that, "when an enhancement is claimed on the ground of a rise in prices, the Court shall compare the average prices during the decennial period immediately preceding the institution of the suit with the average prices during such other decennial period as it may appear equitable and practicable to take for comparison." Section 39, Clause (1) provides that "the Collector of every district shall prepare monthly, or at shorter intervals, periodical lists of the market prices of staple food-crops grown in such local areas as the Local Government may from time to time direct, and shall submit them to the Board of Revenue for approval or revision." By Clause 4, it is enacted that "the price list shall, when approved or revised by the Board of Revenue, be published in the official Gazette." By Clause (6) it is provided that "in any proceedings under the Chapter for an enhancement of rent on the ground of a rise in prices, the Court shall refer to the list published under this section, and shall presume that the prices shown in the lists prepared for any year subsequent to the passing of this Act are correct, and may presume that the prices shown in the lists prepared for any year prior to the passing of this Act are correct, unless and until it is proved that they are incorrect."

(3.) Now, it is not suggested that the Munsif or the lower Appellate Court referred to these lists, nor is it disputed that such lists do exist, and therefore it follows that in this suit, which is a proceeding under Chapter V, the lower Courts failed to make that reference which was imposed upon them by the terms of the law. Therefore, there has been an error of law which entitles the plaintiffs to come here and ask that it should be corrected.