DEEN MOHAMMAD MIAN Vs. HULAS NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals, one by the plaintiff-landlord and one by the defendant- tenants, which have been heard together as they both raise the same point of law. In both suits the plea was taken that in spite of anything that might be contained in any previous contract between the parties and notwithstanding that a higher rate of rent had been previously realized, the landlords could not lawfully realize produce rent in respect of the holdings in suit at a higher proportion than nine twentieths or 18 seers per maund of the total produce by virtue, in one case, of Section 23A (b) and, in the other, of Section 178B, Bihar Tenancy Act, as amended by Bihar Act 8 of 1937. In the one case the Courts below have given effect to this plea; in the other the Munsif gave effect to it, but the Subordinate Judge, modified his decision being of opinion that the relevant sections of Bihar Act 8 of 1937 were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. In the latter case out of which Second Appeal No. 392 arises, the Subordinate Judge acceded to arguments on behalf of the plaintiff which may be summarised thus:

(2.) First, the new legislation by cutting down the landlord's share of the produce from 22 seers in the maund to 18 seers in the maund would have the effect of diminishing the landlord's assets in his estate, thereby depriving him of his property contrary to Section 299, Government of India Act.

(3.) Secondly, the new legislation would have the effect of amending the Permanent Settlement contrary to the assurance given to the zamindars. It was beyond the power of the local Legislature to do this.