(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff, who was the late ruler of the Benares State, brought the suit in his own name on the allegation that the rent of the holding had been enhanced under a Revenue Court's decree which was based on a compromise between the parties and that the defendants were liable to pay such enhanced rent. The defendants pleaded that inasmuch as there was no registered agreement to pay enhanced rent, they were not at all liable and the decree should be for the old rent only. The Court of first instance accepted the defendants contention but on appeal the learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion. He held that under Section 50(i)(b) of the new Tenancy Act the compromise, which was incorporated into the decree of the Court fulfilled the requirements of the law and was valid and binding. He further held that : inasmuch as under the same compromise occupancy rights had been conferred on the defendants they were estopped from going behind the compromise and while claiming occupancy rights disowning their liability to pay the enhanced rent. On appeal a learned Judge of this Court has referred the case to a Division Bench on account of certain questions of law which arise in this case.
(2.) A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal had abated inasmuch as no application to have the abatement set aside consequent upon the death of the late Maharaja was made within the time allowed by law. Such an application was filed by the appellants but it was filed a few days beyond time and there was an affidavit to explain the delay. This matter came up for disposal before a learned Judge of this Court who came to the conclusion that there was no question of abatement in this case as it was a case of devolution under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and that therefore it was not necessary to bring the present Maharaja on the record as the legal representative of the deceased Maharaja. The suit was brought in the name of the late Maharaja and there was no indication in the plaint that the property in dispute was a part of the raj of Benares. It seems unnecessary to decide whether the raj, as such, can be treated as if it were a juristic personality, can own private property in British territory. Prima facie, as the plaint stood, the suit had been brought by the plaintiff who was the landholder against the defendants who were the tenants and it would appear that Order 22 Civil P.C., would be applicable. But the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Single Judge of this Court who came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that there had been no abatement and that there was no necessity to have any such abatement. Had he come to any contrary conclusion he would certainly have considered the question whether on the facts alleged it the affidavit time should not be extended. In the circumstances we think we should not entertain this objection now.
(3.) The previous suit had been brought by the late Maharaja for the ejectment of the defendants treating them as mere non-occupancy tenants. The defendants pleaded that they were occupancy tenants and not non-occupancy tenants. A compromise was filed in Court signed by the parties under which it was agreed that occupancy rights should be conferred on the defendants and that they should pay an enhanced rent. The date of the compromise was 29 September 1925, and was entered into at the time when the Tenancy Act, 2 of 1901, was in force.