DHANUKDHARI SINGH Vs. MSYED RAFIQUI RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for enhancement of rent under Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act. The Courts below have found that the tenant is liable to pay his existing rent only so long as the landlord efficiently maintains irrigation works; but the landlords have neglected this work, and the tenants have been maintaining and protecting the work at their own expense. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal remarked that there is no evidence that the productive power of the land had diminished; but the trial Court found that the land had deteriorated owing to neglect of earth-work; and the learned Subordinate Judge was apparently in error in saying that there was no evidence to that effect.

(2.) The learned advocate for the defendant-appellant argues that in such a case the provisions of Section 35, Ben. Ten. Act, should be applied when the question of enhancement on the ground of rise in prices is under consideration, as they were applied by this Court in Shamdutt Singh V/s. Gajadhar Prasad (1926) 98 IC 1049. It is suggested on behalf of the respondents that in order to show that the landlords right to the existing rent depends on his maintaining efficiently the arrangements for irrigation, the tenants ought to have proved a specific contract between the parties. But the entry in the Record of Rights is in favour of the defendants; and in view of the provisions of Section 103-B, Ben. Ten. Act, it cannot be said that the person who relies on that record must prove by independent evidence that it is correct. It cannot be held that there is no evidence to support the findings of the Courts below that it was the landlords duty to maintain this work.

(3.) It is suggested that the dispute was limited to land which paid produce rent, but the entry in the Record of Rights does not suggest this; it makes it clear that the duty of maintaining irrigation works in general rests with the landlords. There appears to be no doubt, as the learned Munsif has pointed out, that the embankments have been neglected by the landlords for years; and that the tenants ultimately had to obtain permission under Section 79, Ben. Ten. Act, to do the repairs for themselves. This would certainly appear to be a case, in which the principles adopted in the decision of Shamdutt Singh V/s. Gajadar Prasad (1926) 98 IC 1049 should be applied.