SURENDRA KUMAR NANDI Vs. BEPIN CHANDRA GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Rule purchased in an auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree a tenure belonging to opposite party No. 2 and situated in the District of Chittagong. His case is that the rent was settled in kaimi mokarari right by a registered lease dated August 15, 1835. He paid the landlord's fee and served notices as required by the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) Thereupon, the opposite party wife is the landlord made an application under Section 26-J of the Act for enhanced landlord's fee and compensation alleging that the land comprised an occupancy holding. In the lower Court the purchaser of the tenancy relied on the aforesaid registered patta while the landlord relied on the Record of Rights in which the entry was to the effect that the holding was an occupancy one. The learned Munsif gave effect to the entry in the Record of Rights and decided in favour of the landlord. Hence this Rule.

(3.) A question has been raised as to whether in a matter like this, the Court should at all interfere under Rule 115, Civil Procedure Code. The Rule having been obtained by the petitioner I do not propose to examine this matter in detail and it would be sufficient to say that since the Munsif has chosen to exercise jurisdiction under Section 26-J, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the matter is outside those subjects in which this Court would ordinarily interfere.