HAZARILAL Vs. SINGHAI KHUBCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRUER , A.J.C. 1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 66 sub-rent of land leased by the plaintiffs to the defendant for the year 1927-28. The land revenue and rents of the village were remitted by Government for that year and the defendant claimed that Under Section 65, Central Provinces Tenancy Act, the concession extended to him. His plea succeeded in the first Court, but the lower appellate Court, relying on an unpublished ruling of this Court to be found in Jagannath Ramkishan v. Mt. Lakshmi Bai 1928 Nag 149, held that the remission did not apply to subtenants and therefore allowed the plaintiffs' claim. The sub-tenant has therefore come up in second appeal. The plaintiffs-respondents take a preliminary objection that Under Section 83, Central Provinces Tenancy Act, no appeal lias. The appellant's learned pleader admits that ordinarily no appeal would lie in a suit for arrears of sub-rent, but he relies on the proviso and explanation to this section saying that the appeal is saved because it involves a question relating to an interest in land. The explanation reads: For the purpose of this section a right to hold land rent-free or on favourable terms shall be deemed to be an interest in land.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents counters this argument by saying that it applies only to questions about lands such as muafi khairati, muafi khidmati, and that although the rent in the present case was remitted, that does not make the land "rent-free." He would therefore restrict the use of the expression "rent-free" and distinguish it from "free of rent." He says that the expression in the section has reference to cases mentioned in 8. 73, Land Revenue Act, where an inquiry is contemplated by the Settlement Officer. That section however refers to land held free of revenue. I find in Section 99, Central Provinces Tenancy Act, rules about inquiry into rent-free grants. That section excludes the case of sub-tenants for the reason no doubt that the fixing of rent of sub-tenants is more a matter of private contract. I do not find anywhere that the term "rent-free" is a technical one or defined in the Acts. If by virtue of the Government notification the sub-rent for that year was remitted, then the sub-tenant who had at first the right to hold it on payment of a certain rent acquired the right to hold it for that year without any rent at all. The explanation makes no distinction between concessions granted by landlords and those granted by the Government and binding on the landlords. I think that, without any straining of the language, it must be held in the present case that the defendant had that right to hold land rent-free and that a question relating to an interest in land had been determined between the parties to this suit and therefore the appeal lay. This point was not raised in the lower appellate Court, but being one of law could be raised at any stage. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that if the appeal lies, it must succeed, as the point at issue is covered by Sheosahai v. Hari Shankar 1933 Nag 76. This ruling, which dissented from Jagannath Ramkishan v. Mt. Lakshmi Bai 1928 Nag 149, had not been given at the time of the lower appellate Court's decision. The appeal therefore succeeds. The decision of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the decree of the first Court is restored. The respondents will bear costs throughout.