NATHUNI THAKUR Vs. RAMSARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mohammad Noor, J., first came on for hearing before two of us (Kulwant Sahay, J. and myself) and finding that it raised, a question of great importance in enhancement suits under the Bengal Tenancy Act, we decided that it should be re-heard before a Bench of five Judges.

(2.) The question is whether in a suit for enhancement under Section 30 (b), Bengal Tenancy Act, the tribunal is entitled to take into consideration under Section 35 the great economic depression with reduction in staple food crop prices which has taken place recently. Other and minor points were raised by the appeal, but this is the only question of importance. The material parts of Section 30 are as follows: The landlord of a holding held at a money rent by an occupancy raiyat may, subject to the provisions of this Act, institute a suit to enhance the rent on one or more of the following grounds (namely): (a) that the rate of rent paid by the raiyat is below the prevailing rate paid by occupancy raiyats for land of a similar desegregation and with similar advantages in the same village or in neighbouring villages, and that there is no sufficient reason for his holding at so low a rate; (b) that there has been a rise in the average local prices of staple food-crops during the currency of the present rent; (c) that the productive powers of the land held by the raiyat have been increased by an improvement effected by, or at the expense of the landlord during the currency of the present rent; (d) that the productive powers of the land held by the raiyat have been increased by fluvial action.

(3.) It is now well recognized that the rents paid by raiyats in settled areas are not economic rents as understood in western countries. In Kamala Prasad Singh v. Bankey Prasad Singh 124 Ind. Cas. 390 : A.I.R. 1929 Pat. 702 : 10. P.L.T. 693 : Ind. Rul. (1930) Pat. 422., at page 695 Page of 10 P.L.T.--[Ed] James, J. said: I should observe that the section as a whole is based not on economic principles but on the legal and historical principle that the landlord is entitled to a certain share of the produce of the holding. In the words of Regulation 19 of 1793: By the ancient law of the country the ruling power is entitled to a certain proportion of the produce of every bigha of land, demandable in money or kind according to the local custom unless he transfers his right thereto for a term of years or in perpetuity. . In those areas to which the decennial settlement applied, the ruling power compounding with the zamindars transferred this right to them; and except where raiyats hold at fixed rates, the landlord is entitled to a periodical revision of rent under Section 30(6), Bengal Tenancy Act, not on general economic principles but because he is entitled to a certain proportion of the produce of the land.