SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. SYED SADEK REZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11 February 1924, the plaintiff in the present suit obtained from the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad an ijara settlement of certain properties appertaining to Mahal Taraf Sambalpur within tauzi No. 210, Parganah Kanagjole in the district of Maldah on an annual rent of Rs. 10,172 for a period of 21 years commencing from Baisak 1330 B.S. to the end of Chaitra 1350. The material terms of this ijara were : (1) That the rent reserved is to be paid by the lessee kist by kist in the sadar kachery of the Nawab Bahadur in Lalbagh in the district of Murshidabad. (2) That during the term of settlement, the lessor would have nothing to do with possession or dispossession of the properties covered by the ijara and that the lessee will have to pay the fixed annual rent without any objection. (3) That the lessee will have no right to surrender his rights under the ijara during the fixed term of the ijara. (4) That if during the term of the present lease the lessor wants to take khas possession of the mahals, he shall have to give 15 days notice and from the date of the receipt of the notice the khas possession of the mahals will be made over to the lessor.

(2.) In the year 1929 the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad instituted a suit for ejecting the plaintiff from the ijara mahals. This suit was subsequently converted into a suit for arrears of rent of the ijara mahal due up to the end of Chaitra 1337 B.S. In the year 1930, another suit for ejectment was instituted by the Nawab Bahadur against the plaintiff. Both these suits were compromised on 24 April 1931. By this compromise, the ijara was declared to be valid and binding on the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad for the ijara period, namely 21 years and the right of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad to take khas possession of the mahal during the continuance of the lease by giving 15 days notice to quit was extinguished. The plaintiff in the present suit executed a handnote for Rs. 22,000 in favour of the Nawab Bahadur at the time of this compromise and both the suits were dismissed in terms of the compromise. On 21st September 1933, the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act (Act 23 of 1933) came into operation. Mr. K. C. De was appointed manager of the Murshidabad estate under Section 3 of this Act. Thereafter, the manager filed a requisition under Section 5, Public Demands Recovery Act, before the certificate-officer of Lalbagh for realization of arrears of rent of the ijara mahal for the years 1338, 1339 B.S. and for the six months of 1340 B.S. The certificate officer thereupon filed a certificate on 21 November 1933. Another certificate was filed by the same certificate officer for the arrears of rent of the remaining six months of 1340 on 10 May 1934.

(3.) On 30 April 1934, the manager cancelled the ijara settlement under Section 12 of Act 23 of 1933. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Revenue against this order of the manager under Section 13 of the Act. On 16 August 1934,, the Board of Revenue asked the manager to re-consider the case, to give the plaintiff another trial and to help him to recover the arrears due to him from his tenants. The Board of Revenue, however, observed that if the plaintiff did not pay the arrears after this arrangement by reasonable instalments, vigorous steps should be taken to realise them by certificate, etc. On 25 August 1934, the manager asked the plaintiff to state on what conditions he was willing to continue the lease and what terms he would propose for payment of the arrears due from him. On 19 September 1934, the plaintiff proposed certain terms. The material portion of this proposal is as follows : (1) a responsible officer of the Murshidabad estate is to be deputed at the cost of the estate during the rent realisation season to assist the plaintiff's officer in the realisation of rent from the tenants; (2) the plaintiff would pay sums of money that would be realised from time to time from the tenants either in payments of rents due or in execution of decrees for arrears of rent which had been already obtained by him deducting 25 per cent. thereof for collection expenses of the plaintiff and maintenance cost of himself and his family. On the same day, the manager accepted these terms but stated that the certificate cases would not be withdrawn as there would be no way of recovering arrears if the proposed arrangement failed. The manager added that he would not apply for coercive measure from the certificate officer so long as the arrangement would work. On 28 November 1934, an officer was appointed by the manager in accordance with this arrangement. On 11 March 1935, the Board of Revenue wrote to the lessee that he had paid only Rs. 149-4-0 within the last three months and that unless reasonable amount was paid without further delay, certificates would be executed. On 29th June 1935, the manager reported to the Board of Revenue that the arrangement had failed and asked for permission to execute the certificates against the plaintiff. On 9 July 1935, the Board approved the proposal of the manager. The services of the officer who was appointed in accordance with the arrangement were dispensed with by the manager on 15 August 1935. On 8 October 1935, the plaintiff applied to the Board to postpone all proceedings for execution of the two certificates. This application, however, was refused. On 25 October 1935, the certificate officer of Lalbagh issued an order upon the tenants of the ijara mahal prohibiting them from paying any rent to the lessee under Rule 18 (1) (a) and (c) of the Rules in Schedule 2, Public Demands Recovery Act. On the same day, he ordered that the ijara mahal would be sold by public auction.