NAGENDRA CHANDRA LAHIRI Vs. PROBHAT CHANDRA DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge of Rangpur, modifying that of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gaibandha, in a proceeding under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act. The plaintiff-appellants had applied for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of a tenure. The A.S.O's order shows that the matter had already once come up before the Special Judge, when he found that the rent was liable to enhancement, and he remanded the case in order that the enhancement might be determined under Section 7, Ben. Ten. Act. That gave rise to the further proceeding out of which the present appeal has arisen.

(2.) In the record of rights the existing rent was recorded as Rs. 258 per year, which the A.S.O. considered too low. He found the gross assets were Rs. 921-9-7 and deducting 15% thereof as collection charges, and allowing 60% of the balance as profit to the tenure-holders, he settled the fair rent at 40% of the net assets. He further directed that the enhancement was to take effect from 1 Baisakh, 1355 B. S. (April 1948). This order was made presumably under the new Section 75A which had just come into force. Against this decision, the plaintiffs took an appeal to the Special Judge both as regards the enhancement granted and the date from which it was to take effect. As to the first point, the Special Judge reduced the tenure- holders profit to 40%, and assessed the fair rent at 60% of the net assets. On the other point, he upheld the order of the A.S.O. The only question argued on the present appeal is as to the effect of Section 75A. It is contended, in the first place, that settlement of a fair and equitable rent under Chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, is not enhancement of rent within the meaning of Section 75A, and secondly, that Section 75A being in the nature of a general provision, it cannot control the special provision contained in Section 110 as regards the date from which a rent settled under Chap. 10 is to take effect. In my opinion, both these contentions must be overruled.

(3.) As regards the first point, it will be seen that Section 105, Sub-section (4) expressly provides that in settling rents under this section, the Revenue Officer shall have regard to the rules laid down in the Act for the guidance of the Civil Court in increasing or reducing rents, as the case may be. There is a similar provision in Section 104D for eases where a settlement of land revenue is being or is about to be made. This presupposes that in settling rents under Chap. 10, whether under Part 2 or under Part 3, the Revenue Officer has the power to alter the rents as recorded in the finally published record of rights either by enhancing or by reducing the same. This is in fact distinctly recognized under Part 2 in Section 104A, Sub- section (1), Clause (d), the proviso to the section making express reference to the provisions of the Act regarding enhancement, such as Secs.6 to 9 (for tenure-holders), Secs.27 to 36 (for occupancy raiyats) and Section 43 (for non-occupancy raiyats) besides Secs.50 to 52 (alteration of rent for alteration in area). I do not see, therefore, why enhancement of rent in proceedings for settlement of rents should not be regarded as enhancement in accordance with the provisions of the Act within the meaning of Section 75A. Section 75A is quite general in its terms, and to limit its scope and effect in the way suggested would indeed be to defeat the express purpose of this provision. In my opinion, the first point raised on behalf of the appellants must, therefore, fail.