CHANDRA NATH SARMA MOTAYED Vs. SHEIKH INAMDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed interest on the arrears of rent at the rate of 150 per sent, per annum. The Courts below disallowed the high rate of interest on the ground that it was exorbitant and awarded damages at 25 per sent. The land was held under a lease for a term of three years from Magh 1285 to Pous 1288. The lease expired before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act; there was no fresh lease and the tenant was holding over.

(2.) There is divergence of judicial opinion upon the question as to the effect of holding over. In the case of Kishore Lal Dey V/s. The Adminsitrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. Ghose and Wilkins, JJ., were of opinion that when a tenant holds over, after the expiration of his lease, he does so on the terms of the lease, on the same rent and on the same stipulations as are mentioned in the lease until the parties come to a fresh settlement; that there is no general rule of law to the effect that the lease of an agricultural tenant in this country who holds over, must be taken as renewed from year to year, and that if any contract is to be implied, it should be taken to have been entered into so noon as the term of the lease expired rather than at the beginning of each year. In that case the suit was brought on the basis of a kabuliyat which was for a term of five years, the interest stipulated to be paid was 75 per sent, and the lease expired before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Judges held that the tenant was bound to pay interest at the rate stipulated in the kabuliyat, and that the tenancy was unaffected by the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. On the other hand, in the Case of Administrator General of Bengal V/s. Asraf Ali 28 C. 227 a contrary view was taken. There also, the land was held by an agricultural tenant under a lease for a term of six years, which expired in 1881; the tenant had been holding over ever since, and the rate of interest specified in the lease was 75 per cent, per annum, The landlord sued for rent for the years 1893 to 1895 and part of (sic) with interest at the rate specified in the lease. It was held that under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the plaintiff could not recover interest at a rate higher than 12 per cent. per annum and that when an agricultural tenant holds over, his tenancy is renewed from year to year.

(3.) Ameer Ali and Brett, JJ., in deciding the case referred to a number of cases including the case of Kishore Lal Dey V/s. The Administrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. and also to Ali Mamud Pramanick V/s. Bhagabati Debya 2 C.W.N. 525. where it was held by Rampini and Henderson, JJ., that where a tenant was holding over on the expiration of a lease which had been exesuted before the passing of the Tenancy Act, but which expired after it came into force, the landlord was not entitled to interest beyond that provided by Section 67 of the Act. Ameer Ali and Brett, JJ., observed that a distinction had been drawn between the latter case and that of Kishore Lal Dey V/s. The Administrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. on the ground that the lease had expired after the Tenancy Act came into operation, but that fact did not appear to them to affect the general principle, Then the learned Judges, referring to the decision in the case of Kishore Lal Dey V/s. The Administrator-General of Bengal 2 C.W. N. 303. that a tenant who holds over with the consent of the landlord does so upon the same conditions as those set out in his time expired lease, and that if any contract is to be implied, as contended for on behalf of the appellants, it should be taken to have been entered into so soon as the term of the lease expired rather than at the beginning of each year, "observed:" If this means that the implied contract is for the same term of years as in the lease (of course it could not be for an indefinite period), we venture to think the correctness of the dictum is open to Question. We consider that when an agricultural tenant holds over his tenancy is from year to year." There appears, therefore, to be some conflict between these two cases.