SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. RAMCHARAN ACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the only question argued before us is whether the suit is in time, having been instituted more than six months after the date of the final publication under Section 104- H of the Bengal Tenancy Act. A suit of this nature has to be brought within six months from the date of the final publication. Both the learned Munsif and the District Judge were of opinion that the period of six months expired during the vacation and the suit was instituted on the day the Court re-opened and that the suit was in time. I see no reason to take a contrary view.

(2.) There is, further, a cross-objection by the respondent which remains to be considered. Two questions are raised by the cross-objection. It is contended, firstly, that the Court of appeal below should have held that the rent of the holding was not liable to enhancement and that a presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act arising from proof of uniform payment of rent for over 20 years did apply to this case. Upon the reading of the) pleadings and evidence put before us, I am of opinion that this ground fails, because that Section could not apply where the origin of the tenancy is known and, according to the construction which I have put upon the pleadings arid evidence, the origin of the tenancy is known. Therefore, Section 50 does not apply.

(3.) The second point is, that the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the Civil Court could not revise the rent fixed in the Settlement Rent-Roll. We have been addressed at some length upon this point, but I am not satisfied that the cross-objector has shown that learned Judge has come to a wrong conclusion upon this question.