BISESWAR ROY CHOWDHURY AND ON HIS DEATH, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVERAJESWAR ROY CHOWDHURY, AS EXECUTOR TO HIS ESTATE Vs. BROJO KANTA ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent of an osta-nim-howla.

(2.) It appears that the defendant, who is the talukdar, granted a howla lease in respect of the disputed land in favour of one Kalam Mridha at a rent of Rs. 232 annas 8 on the 10 Sraban 1299 B.S. This howla interest was purchased in 1300 by the plaintiff and he thus became howladar under the defendant who is the talukdar. Simultaneously with the sale by Kalam Mridha of the howla interest to the plaintiff, an osat nim howla was granted by the plaintiff to Kalam Mridha at a rent of Rs. 272 annas 8. This osat nim-howla interest was transferred by Kalam to defendant and it is said that on the same day the defendant granted a mirash ijara in favour of Kalam at a rent of Rs. 275 annas 8. This was on the 20 Chaitra 1302. In 1897, the defendant as talukdar brought a suit for enhancement of rent of the howla against the plaintiff and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 232 annas 8 to Rs. 482 annas 6. The plaintiff has now brought a suit for enhancement of rent against the defendant in respect of the osat-nim-howla tenure which was let out at a rent of Rs. 272 annas 8.

(3.) The main defense was that the rent of the osat-nim howla was fixed and could not be enhanced.