GOSTA BEHARI PRAMANIK Vs. NAWAB BAHADUR OF MURSHIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of importance to be determined in this case is whether Section 109, Ben. Ten. Act, before its amendment bars the plaintiff's suit or whether the section as amended in 1928 has retrospectively removed the bar. There were other questions raised, such as limitation, which have all been decided in favour of the plaintiff by the Court of appeal below. The trial Court found two main issues against the plaintiff and held that the suit was barred by limitation and also by the operation of Section 109 before its amendment.

(2.) The suit was instituted on 14 April 1927. The decision of the first Court was pronounced on 16 April 1928. The amended Bengal Tenancy Act came into force on 21 February 1929 and the judgment of the lower appellate Court was delivered on 21 March 1929, that is, after the new Act came into operation. The decision of the trial Court was undoubtedly correct according to the law as it stood at the date it was pronounced. The learned District Judge is of opinion that as Section 109 which relates to a matter of procedure only has since been amended, the law as it stood when he gave his decision should apply.

(3.) It appears that the defendant was recorded in the Record of Rights as a tenant under the plaintiff and his tenancy was recorded as "no rent paid, liable to assessment of rent." In 1918 the plaintiff applied under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent payable by the defendant in respect of the land hold by him. Soon after he withdrew the application with liberty to bring a fresh suit. On these facts the trial Court on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Purna Chandra V/s. Narendra Nath and also the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Rishee Case Law V/s. Satish Chandra Pal A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 134 held that the present suit could not be maintained. The learned District Judge on appeal holds that Section 109 relates to a matter of procedure only, and according to the well known canon of interpretation of statute relating to procedure only, applies to all proceedings pending at the time when it comes into force. Section 109 as amended by the Act of 1928 entitles the. landlord to maintain a suit in the ordinary civil Court oven if his application under Section 105 has failed provided it has not been decided on the merits. The learned Judge admits that if the new law has no retrospective effect or does not apply to pending proceedings he is bound to follow the Full Bench decision. But ho is of opinion that though the amended section does not say that it will function retrospectively there can be no objection to allowing this point of procedure to be decided by the new law. In my judgment this view of the law is not correct. It is not necessary to go in detail into the rule of interpretation of statutes relating to the matter in issue which is to be found in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, Edn., 7 pp. 192 and 197.