PRASANNA KUMAR BANERJI Vs. ROY JATINDRA NATH CHOWDHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation, which is the outcome of five different suits, has lasted for the period of fifteen years. It is not necessary to explain its origin or to trace its course, which has certainly been leisurely and somewhat devious. Nothing now remains to be determined but a question of general importance:

(2.) THE question therefore divides itself into two branches:

(3.) THEN comes the question, is a suit to enhance rent a thing authorized under the Act? It is so plainly in the case of an occupancy raiyat. The authority is given expressly in Section 30. It is so also in the case of tenure-holders, though the language is not so explicit. Section 7(1) provides that in the cases where the rent of a tenure-holder is liable to be enhanced it may (subject to any contract between the parties) be enhanced up to a certain specified limit. Now rent can only be enhanced by instituting a suit for that purpose; and therefore it seems tolerably clear that the institution of a suit for enhancement of rent is a thing authorized by the Act in the case of tenure-holders as well as in the case of occupaucy raiyats.