CHARUSILA DASSI Vs. MAZAFFAR SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition relates to one of the five applications made by the petitioner under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, before the Assistant Settlement Officer for, as she stated in her petition, settlement of fair and equitable rent claiming inter alia enhancement on the ground of rise in prices of staple food crops, excess rent for excess area and for correction of the entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the jama by incorporation of the hajat (or a portion of the rent kept in suspension out of grace by the landlord) with the jama recorded.

(2.) The applications were made as regards 201 tenancies or holdings and were divided into five groups, each application relating to a number of cases. The grouping was done in accordance with Rule 60 (4) of the Rules framed by the Bengal Government under the Bengal Tenancy Act, the several tenancies being in one village. The first application referred to 52 khatians, the second to 43, the third to 39, the fourth 33 and the fifth to 34. This rule was issued in connexion with the third ease, and the point with which we are now concerned is as to what should be the proper court-fee payable on the application by the petitioner. Under the Government Notification to which reference will be made the petitioner paid a court-fee of 12 annas upon each khatian covered by the five applications under Section 105 presented by her. Taking the case with which we are now concerned the khatians covered by it were, as stated before, 39 in number. The petitioner paid 39 times 12 annas as court-fees on the application. The Assistant Settlement Officer took exception to the amount of court-fee paid by the petitioner and she thereupon paid Rs. 20 more for each application that is Rs. 100 for the five applications presented by her. The decision of the Settlement Officer was not in favour of the petitioner and she appealed to the Special Judge of Birbhum. At the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the applications made before the Settlement Officer as well as the appeals before the Special Judge did not bear requisite stamp. The learned Special Judge considered the question and was of opinion that the proper court-fee payable on these applications should be 12 annas for each tenancy involved and an ad valorem court-fee not exceeding Rs. 20 on the valuation to be put on the relief asked for in respect of each such tenancy.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the view taken by the Special Judge is not correct and before us she even goes to the length of urging that the court-fee levied by the Assistant Settlement Officer was not also according to law. Her contention is that her case is not one which falls under Section 106 or Section 105-A, and that therefore the court-fee put by her is sufficient. In the second place she contends that if the case falls under Section 105 A or is considered a suit under Section 106, the additional court-fee of Rs. 20 put by her on each application is sufficient. Before considering the merits of the petitioner's contention, it is necessary to consider the nature of the application and to determine under what provision of the law it falls. As is said in her application, she prays for settlement of fair and equitable rent claiming enhancement on the ground of the rise in prices of staple food-crops and additional rent for additional area. So far as this relief is concerned, it comes wholly within the scope of Section 105. She then prays for correction of the entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the jamas by incorporation of the hajat. Her case is that the amounts of rent mentioned in the khatians are not correct; because such amounts do not include hajats or portions of rent which the landlord remitted for some reason or other but which really form part of the rents. This relief is one which may fall under Section 106 and may also be considered to be within Section 105-A (f); Kailash Sundari V/s. Mid-napur Zamindary Co. Ltd. . It is not a relief which can be said to be one which the landlord or tenant can claim under Section 105 in respect of settlement of rent. The petitioner invites the Settlement Officer to inquire into the question as to what the real rent is and not for settlement of a fair and equitable rent on the grounds mentioned in Secs.30 and 52, Ben. Ten. Act. It must therefore come under Section 105-A or 106 and we assume according to the above decision and for our present purposes that this relief is one within Section 105-A (f).