SARAT CHANDRA DE DAS Vs. TARAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Panton in a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land of the disputed tenancy. The appellants were recorded as occupancy raiyats in the Record of Rights. Thereupon the landlords-respondents applied tinder Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent. The tenants contended that the entry was erroneous and that they were in fact tenants at a fixed rate of rent. The Assistant Settlement Officer came to of the conclusion that, as the defendants had failed to prove that they held at the same rate of rent for 20 years, they were not entitled to the benefit of the presumption mentioned in Section 50. Upon appeal the Special Judge reversed that decision. His conclusion was that, as the rent had not been varied for over 20 years, the tenants were raiyats at a fixed rate of rent. On second appeal to this; Court Mr. Justice Panton has reversed that decision and has restored the decree of the primary Court.

(2.) The judgment of Mr. Justice Panton has been attacked on two grounds, namely, first, that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 109A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and, secondly, that the judgment of the Special Judge could not be successfully assailed in second appeal. In our opinion, there is no foundation for either of these contentions.

(3.) As regards the first point, it is plain that the decision of the Special Judge did not determine merely the amount of fair fend equitable rent. It was in essence a decision upon the question of the status of the tenant. Such a decision, it is now well settled, is liable to be challenged by way of second appeal to this Court: Jnanada Sundari V/s. Abdur Rahman 33 Ind. Cas. 148 : 43 C. 603 : 23 C.L.J. 281 : 20 C.W.N. 428.