SM SAKHISONA DASI Vs. PRANKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of rent for the years 1330 to 1333 B.S. for a holding, which, according to her, consisted of 3 bighas 15 cottas of land and bore a rental of Rs. 90-4-0 per year. The defendant's case was that upwards of 100 years ago their predecessors came to have a holding under the predecessors of the plaintiff which originally consisted of 4 bighas 17 cottas of land with a rental of Rs. 72-12-0; that by a measurement subsequently made it was found to consist of 4 bighas 15 cottas 8 chitaks and its rental was accordingly reduced to Rs. 71-11-0; that by subsequent settlements taken of fresh lands from time to time, it eventually became a jama of 6 bighas 3 cottas of land with a rental of Rs. 147- 8-0. Their case was that the plaintiff had forcibly dispossessed them of 2 bighas 8 cottas out of the lands and settled the same with a third party. Their case further was that when they protested, the plaintiff promised to give them 1 bigha 3 cottas mere land and grant them a permanent lease of 5 bighas 1 cotta of land on a rental of Rs. 120, but that the plaintiff never carried out her promise and on the other hand placed all sorts of obstacles in their enjoyment of the rest of the lands and so they are entitled to claim suspension of rent. The plaintiff's allegation on the other hand was that the 2 bighas 8 cottas of land was taken from the defendants with their consent and on their agreeing to pay a reduced rental of Rs. 90-4-0, and she denied having interfered with the defendants peaceful enjoyment of the rest of the lands. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. The trial Court observed that it was unable to hold that any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties in respect of a jama of Rs. 90-4-0.

(2.) The wording of this finding is not quite happy but what is meant is clear: the Court held that the plaintiff's case that there was consent to the portion being taken out and a rental of Rs. 90-4-0 being agreed upon was not established. The Subordinate Judge also has found that the plaintiff's case that the defendants willingly gave 2 bighas 8 cottas and agreed to pay a rental of Rs. 90-4-0 was not proved. He has come to no definite finding on the defendant's case that after the dispossession there was a promise by the plaintiff to give them 1 bigha 6 cottas more land and to grant them a permanent lease of 5 bighas 1 cotta at a rental of Rs. 120, but has observed thus: It seems to me that the clamorous of the defendants against such aggression were alleged by some golden prospects, held out for compensation and the plaintiff is powerful enough not only to take away the lands but also to forget her promise of compensation.

(3.) He has also recorded another finding, but that, in my opinion, is not a finding on which his decision is based, that the plaintiff has put some obstacles in the way of the defendants peaceful possession by cutting off water supply for irrigation, and I accordingly do not propose to place any reliance on it. I have very carefully scrutinized the finding and have come to the conclusion that it amounts, on the whole, to a finding of wrongful and forcible dispossession. The question to be considered is whether on this finding a decree suspending the entire rent is justified. The question has been considered in a very large number of cases and it must be conceded that there is a considerable conflict in the views that have from time to time been taken. It is nevertheless, in my opinion, possible to gather from the decisions, certain principles, which may, without difficulty, be held to be sufficient for the disposal of the present case I propose to refer to only such of the decisions as have a direct bearing on the case before me. The doctrine of suspension of rent, as I understand it, means that the landlord may be penalized for a wilfully wrongful or tortuous act of his own by which he prevents a tenant from being in quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the premises demised to the latter.