KUNJA MOHAN CHAKRAVARTY Vs. MANINDRA CHANDRA ROY CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession or, in the alternative, for assessment of rent. The disputed tenure was held by the defendants under the plaintiffs and fell into arrears. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit for arrears of rent and obtained n decree. In execution of that decree the tenure was sold on the 8 January 1907 and was purchased by the landlord decree-holders for the sum of Rs. 1. On the 29 April 1918 the plaintiffs landlords instituted the present suit for ejectment on the allegation that the defendants were in unlawful occupation, notwithstanding the sale of their tenure. The defendants urged that the decree had been made and the sale had been held without jurisdiction. So that their interest in the tenure had not been affected thereby. The Trial Court accepted this contention as well founded and dismissed the claim for ejectment. The Court, however, made a decree for arrears of rent. Upon appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision and made a decree in ejectment with mesne profits. On the present appeal the view taken by the District Judge has been assailed as contrary to law.

(2.) It is not disputed that the tenure is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif at Kurigram within the district of Rangpur. The suit for rent however, was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at the head-quarters of that district. The defendants did not appear, with the result that the suit was decreed ex parte. The decree was then executed at the instance of the plaintiff and the tenure was brought to sale in the Court where the decree had been passed. On these facts, the defendants contend that the decree was made and the sale was held without jurisdiction.

(3.) In support of the contention that the decree was made without jurisdiction, reliance has been placed upon Sub-section (1) of Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act, which is in these terms: "The cause of action in all suits between landlord and tenant as such shall, for the purposes of the Civil P. C., be deemed to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit or the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought." This provision, it will be observed, does not specify the Court where the, suit is to be instituted. It merely defines the expression cause of action as applied to suits between landlord and tenant for the purposes of the Civil P. C.. That this is the true scope of the section is clear from the decision in Fazlur Rahim Abu Ahmed V/s. Dwarka Nath Chowdhry 30 C. 453 : 7 C.W.N. 402. In that case, it was ruled that Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act, was controlled by, Secs.15 and 17 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, and that consequently a suit for rent was required to be instituted, subject to pecuniary limitations, in the Court of the, lowest grade competent to try it. Sir Francis Maclean, C.J., pointed out that Section 144 merely lays down where the cause of action in suits between landlord and tenant shall, for the purpose of the Civil P. C., be deemed to have arisen: it does not say in which Court the suit is to be instituted. To ascertain this, we must go to Section 17 of the Civil P. C., 1882, which provides that all other suits, chat is, other than those mentioned in Section 16, shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises. This, in the case of suits between landlord and tenant, is controlled by Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act which tells us where, in such suits, the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen: i.e., within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the holding or tenure in connection with which the suit is brought. We must consequently turn to the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of 1908 which replaces Section 17 of the Code of 1882. Now Section 20, provides that subject to the limitation aforesaid, that is the limitations set out in the preceding sections, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant or each of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided that in such case, either the I have of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business or personally work for gain as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution, or (c) the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Consequently under Section 20(e) of the Code of 1908 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 144, Bengal Tenancy Act, a suit for rent may be instituted in the Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which lies the property in respect of which a suit for possession may have been brought. This, however, does not exhaust all the provisions of Section 20. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 allow a landlord to institute a suit for rent where the tenant resides. This must obviously be limited to cases where the landlord seeks a decree fur money. Where however, the landlord seeks a decree for rent as also ejectment under Section 66, Bengal Tenancy Act, the suit must be treated as one for recovery of immoveable property within the meaning of Clause (4) of Section 16 and can consequently be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. In the case before us, there is evidence to show that at the time the suit for rent was instituted, the defendants resided within the local limits of the Court of the Munsif at the headquarters of the District of Rungpur. The suit was consequently brought in a Court which had jurisdiction and the decree cannot successfully be impeached on that ground. The view we take is supported by the decision in Chintaman Narayan V/s. Madhavrav Venkatesh 6 B.H.C.R.A.C.J. 29 where it was ruled that a suit to recover the rents of land situated in District may be brought in District S., where the defendant is residing, although in such suit the plaintiff's title to the land in respect of which the rent is sought to be recovered may incidentally come in question.