CHHATAR SINGH Vs. SYED SHAH QASIM GHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this first appeal the defendant appellant was an auction purchaser of the rent-claimed tenures and the main question is, from what date he became liable for the rent. The landlord had obtained an earlier rent decree against Deo Bihari, the tenure holder, in execution of which the tenure was sold and purobased at auction by the present defendant, Chhatar Singh, on 19 June 1933. The landlord brought this suit impleading both the for. mer tenant Deo Bihari and the purchaser Chhatar Singh and claiming rent for all kists (there are nine kists per year) of the years 1341 to 1343. Subsequently, Deo Bihari was discharged from the record and the landlord claimed rent from Chhatar Singh only for the entire period, whereas the defendant contended that he was nob liable for rent for the period before October 1934, when he took delivery of possession.

(2.) Relevantdates are 19 June 1933, auction sale; 19 February 1934, confirmation of sale after disallowing the objection of the decree holders. This date corresponds to 20 Phagun 1341 Fasli. Again on 19 March 1934, the decree- holders appealed but their appeal was dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, on 20 April 1934. The Subordinate Judge held that the defendant was not liable for instalments accruing due before 19 February 1934, totaling Rs. 734-3-0 but was liable for the kist of Phagun 1341 and all subsequent kists. Another point was raised in this appeal, namely that the lower Court erred in allowing interest on the arrear of rent at 12 1/2 per cent.

(3.) The latter contention need not detain us long. It is based on the amendment made in 1937 to Section 67, Bihar Tenancy Act. Previous to that amendment the statutory rate of interest was 12 1/2 per cent, per annum. The , amendment declares that: An arrear of rent shall bear simple interest at the rate of six and a quarter per centum per annum. The amendment came into force on 29 December 1937 and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was passed on 21 December 1937, that is to say, it was clearly a correct decree on the date when it was passed. Interest after decree has been allowed at 6 per cent and no objection is taken to this. The new Section 67 does not apply as it is not expressed to be retrospective. As to the date from which the plaintiffs are entitled to rent there is an appeal by the defendant as well as a cross objection by the plaintiffs. The defendant contends that until he obtained delivery of possession he should not be liable to pay rent in the circumstances of this case because the delay in his getting possession of the property was due to the decree-holder having resisted his right as purchaser of the property by preferring an objection under Section 173, Bihar Tenancy Act, alleging that the defendant, Chhatar Singh, was only a benamidar for the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder sought to have the sale set aside on this ground.