KRISHNA KAMINI DASI Vs. NIL MADHAB SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seventeen appeals arise out of as many proceedings, instituted by landlords under Section. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for assessment of fair and equitable rent in respect of lands included in tenures held under them. The tenure-holders contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the presumption formulated in Section 50(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and were consequently protected from enhancement under Section 50(1). It was found that the original tenures had been subdivided with the consent of the landlords; each fragment was held at a proportionate rent and the aggregate rent was equal to the original rent. Not with standing this, the Revenue Officer held that the provisions of Section 50 were inapplicable to the disputed tenures, which must be deemed to be new tenures the rent whereof was liable to enhancement. On appeal, the Special Judge held that the sub-division of a tenure does not operate as a breach of the continuity of the tenure, if each fragment is held at a proportionate rent and the aggregate rent equals the original rent. The Special Judge, however, reviewed his decision and ultimately adopted the view taken by the Revenue Officer. We have now to consider whether the earlier or the later view which commended itself to the Special Judge is correct.

(2.) Section 50(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides as follows. The operation of this section, so far as it relates to land held by a raiyat, shall not be affected by the fact of the land having been separated from other land which formed with it a sinlge holding, or amalgamated with other land into one holding.

(3.) With reference to this provision, it was ruled by Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ., in Uday Chandra Karji V/s. Maharaja Nripendra Narayan Bhup 1 Ind.Cas. 4 : 36 C. 287 : 13 C.W.N. 410, that where a tenure existed from long before the Permanent Settlement but was subsequently split up into two equal halves, each bearing one-half of the original rent, the old tenure could not be regarded as continued in the shape of the two new tenancies. The Court held that the words "so far as it relates to land held by a raiyat" in Section 50(3) clearly imply that the operation of the section, so far as it relates to land held by a tenure-holder, is affected by the separation of the land from other land which formed with it a single tenure. It is plain that the Court held the maxim applicable, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The construction of Sectior 50(3) adopted in this case has, however, found no favour with the Courts.