CHOWDHURY RADHASHYAM DAS Vs. NIDHI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a complaint made by Nidhi Sahu, a tenant of certain landa in village Bhingarpur in the District of Pari, under Section 85, Orissa Tennancy Act, against his landlord Chaudhuri Radhashyam Das and Sibaram Mahanti his tahsildar. The complaint came before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cuttack Sadr who found both the accused liable under Section 85, Orissa Tenancy Act, and directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. An appeal was made to the Sessions Court at Cuttack, but the Sessions Judge rejected the appeal as incompetent. The matter now comes before the High Court in revision.

(2.) The plaintiff and two other cosharers are tenants of a holding in village Bhingarpur. There apparently has been a private partition between them which has admittedly not been recognized by the landlord, although it is said, no doubt, correctly that the complainant is the man in occupation of the lands in respect of which this dispute arises and has always himself paid the rent. On 11 November 1939, he paid the rent for the land in question amounting to Rs. 3-9-3 for the years 1316 and 1347 F., and obtained a receipt. Later on, 16 May 1941, Sibaram Mahanti, the tahsildar, demanded rent for the years 1346 and 1347 F., again which was paid amounting to Rs. 3-12-3 including a small sum for interest and another official receipt was granted. On 11 November 1941, Nidhi filed a petition under Section 85, Orissa Tenancy Act, which provides that if a landlord or his agent levies on a tenant anything in excess of the rent lawfully payable, the Collector of the district may, if he is so satisfied, by order impose on the landlord such penalty not exceeding Rs. 500 as he may think fit and a portion of the penalty may be awarded to the tenant as compensation and a proceeding under the Section shall be instituted on a complaint made by the tenant. The Section also provides that any fine imposed under the Section may be recovered in the manner provided by any law for the time being in force for the recovery of a public demand.

(3.) The facts above stated are admitted on behalf of the two accused; but the accused Chaudhuri Radhashyam Das says that he knew nothing about the payments until after Suniya (Oriya new year) year 1349. His supervisor was then auditing the tahsildar's accounts and found that the rent for the years 1346 and 1347 had been realised twice and that thereupon he had caused the overpaid amount to be adjusted by serving a notice dated 30 October 1941, on Isar Sahu, one of the cosharers of the holding and giving a receipt to him dated 7th November 1941, for Rs. 3-7-6 as rent of the holding for the years 1348 and 1349 and another receipt of the same date for Rs. 0-4-9 towards rent of another holding belonging to the same tenants.