MOFIZUDDIN SARDAR Vs. LAKHAN BAIRAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules have been issued in respect of judgments and decrees passed in two suits brought by the petitioner against the opposite party in each case to recover rent. The opposite party in each case holds a karsa holding under a kayerni karsa tenure, which is held under a howla, the howla being held under a patni. The present petitioner, the plaintiff, is the proprietor of the patni, the howla right and the kayerni karsa right. When the suits were instituted, an objection in each case was taken by the tenant to their proceeding on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover by a suit the rents claimed, because he, as proprietor of the kayerni karsa tenure, did not serve on himself as proprietor of the howla light a notice as required by Section 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Both the lower Courts have given effect to this objection and dismissed the suits. Against the judgments and decrees in both suits, these applications have been made and these Rules have been issued on the opposite party to show causa why the judgment and decrees of the District Judge, dated the 18th May 1912, dismissing the appeal as well as the judgment and decrees of the Court of first instance dismissing the suits of the petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that they appear to have been passed on a misconception of the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) No one appears to oppose the Rule No. 5451, and the Rule must be made absolute but without costs. The petitioner, however, is entitled to recover from the opposite party his costs in the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) In Rule No. 5452 appearance has been entered on behalf of the opposite party; and it has been contended that in strict accordance with the provision of Section 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the petitioner, the plaintiff, was not entitled to recover by suit the rents claimed. The argument addressed to us is that the intention of the law was, by requiring service of a notice on the superior tenure-holder or landlord, to give that person information which would enable him to alter his register. In fact, the two sections say nothing about any alteration of register. But the object of the two sections appears to be to give information to the superior landlord of any change in his tenants or subordinate tenure-holders.