AGHORE CHANDRA JALUI Vs. RAJNANDINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rules issued by this Court in the cases before us, were directed against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Howrah, passed in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 117 and 131 of 1931, granting relief to the opposite party, on applications made by them, purporting to be under Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, for realization of landlord's fee and compensation, as mentioned in that section. The applications were made on the footing that the petitioners in this Court were the purchasers of portions of occupancy holdings of which the opposite party were the landlords. The applications so made were resisted by the tenants, petitioners before us. The decision of the Munsif went against them, and this Court was moved to set aside the order of the Court below. The question argued before us on behalf of the petitioners was that the Court below acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in going into complicated questions of title and status of the tenant otherwise than in a suit properly framed for the purpose. It was contended that recovery of landlord's fee and compensation, as provided by Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, must be by a suit instituted for that purpose, and not by an application.

(2.) There was no doubt that Section 26-J, as it stands, does not expressly mention the procedure to be followed for the purpose of recovery of landlord's fee and compensation. The intention of the Legislature however is to provide a procedure of a summary nature in the matter of realization of the balance of the fee payable on transfer under Secs.26-C to 26- E, Ben. Ten. Act; and that intention is clearly expressed in Section 188 of the Act, definitely enumerating the filing of an application under Section 26. J as one of the acts which the law authorizes cosharer landlords to do, acting together, or by an agent authorized to act on their behalf. The true meaning, the exact scope and significance of any passage occurring in a statute may be found not merely in the words of that passage but on a comparison of the same with other parts of the statute, and the intention of the legislature ascertained in that way: see River Wear Commissioners V/s. Adamson (1877) 2 AC 743 and Easter Co. v. Comptroller of Patents (1898) AC 576. In our judgment therefore the landlords were entitled under the law to recover the balance of transfer fee together with compensation, as mentioned in Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, by means of an application, as made in the case before us. It may be mentioned that the decision we have arrived at, on the question of interpretation of Section 26-J, Ben. Ten. Act, arising for consideration in the case before us, is in consonance with the view expressed by this Court previously on the subject: see per C.C. Ghose, J, in the case of Hari Mohan Sarkar V/s. Lokenath Mukerji, Civil Revision Case No. 768 of 1931 decided on 3 February 1931 and per Jack, J., in the case of Srinath Bose V/s. Dehendra Nath . The Rules are discharged and the order of the Court below is confirmed. We make no order as to costs in these cases. M.C. Ghose, J.

(3.) I agree.