SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. DHUNMAN GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the landlord decree-holder who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Courts below by which they have held that the judgment-debtor is entitled to have the rent decree scaled down to the amount fixed by the Rent Reduction Officer in a proceeding under Section 16, Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Land and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act (Act 9 of 1938), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.

(2.) The facts are these. In 1938 the appellant instituted a rent suit for recovery of arrears of rent for 1343 and 1344 Fasli. The suit was decreed by the Munsif on 1st September of the same year. On 12 August 1939 the tenant-judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 16 of the Act before the Collector and asked for reduction of arrears of rent for 1343 and 1344 Fasli--the tenant is an occupancy raiyat. The Collector allowed the reduction of rent by an order dated 12 April 1940 from Bs.80 to Rs. 20, as we are informed. On 29 July 1940 the appellant executed the decree. The tenant objected that he is liable to pay only Rs. 54-3-6 which was the amount fixed as the result of the reduction proceedings by the Collector. The appellant objected that he is not bound by the order of the Bent Reduction Officer as the order was ultra vires. The learned Munsif by an order dated 15 January 1941 held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to enter into the question as to whether the order of the Rent Reduction Officer was ultra vires and he thought that he was conclusively bound by the order and, therefore, directed the judgment-debtor to deposit Rs. 54-3-6 otherwise the property would be sold.

(3.) Against this decision there was an appeal to the learned District Judge of Darbhanga who on 28 July 1941 apparently held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the order of the Rent Reduction Officer was ultra vires or not, but was of the opinion that the order was a proper order in a proceeding to which Section 16 of the Act applied and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly the second appeal has been preferred to this Court by the landlord. The judgment-debtor has not appeared to oppose the appeal. The only question to be decided is whether Section 16 of the Act applied and not whether the order is the correct order passed under that section.