RAM RENU ROY Vs. MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before us by way of appeal and revision and arises out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair rent.

(2.) So far as the present case (No. 271) is concerned, although the plaintiff applied for additional rent for additional area and also for enhancement of rent, when the matter came up before the Assistant Settlement Officer the latter claim appears to have been abandoned, The Assistant Settlement Officer states as follows: "In Cases Nos. 271 and 54, the plaintiff claimed additional rents in the plaints but in the rest of the applications they claimed, besides additional rents, enhancement of rent under Section 30(a) and 30(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act." The issues framed in the case show that, so far as the present case is concerned, there was no issue as to enhancement of rent. The excess area was found by the Settlement Officer and the excess rent was calculated on a certain basis. In the result, Rs. 65-3-6 was the rent settled.

(3.) There was an appeal by the plaintiff to the Additional Special Judge. The learned Judge was of opinion that the obvious course was to fix the rent on the principles of Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and he held that Rs. 128 should be the rent payable by the defendant although the plaintiff claimed only Rs. 98. We think that the learned Judge was wrong in enhancing the rent, with reference to the provisions of Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The question whether the rent should be enhanced or not was not gone into by the Court of first instance. As pointed out above, the only question set out in the beginning of the judgment of that Court was what was the additional rent for the additional area.