DINANATH CHANDRA Vs. SUDHANYAMONI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten appeals arise out of as many suits for enhancement of rent under Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff, that is the landlord, brought these suits against the tenant defendants on the allegation that their rent was liable to be enhanced in view of the provisions of Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act. In the finally published Record of Rights the tenant defendants status was recorded as that of tenure-holders. The defendants however in their defence took the plea that they were not tenure holders but were raiyats and consequently the provisions of Section 7, Bengal Tenancy Act, were not applicable. The defendants also stated that the amount of enhancement claimed was excessive and unfair.

(2.) The Courts below have concurrently rejected the defence of the tenants to the effect that they were raiyats. As regards the amount of enhancement, the trial Court on a consideration of the evidence in each individual case allowed to the landlord only 25 per cent of the net profit in one case and 50 per cent the net profit in the other cases. Appeals were thereafter taken by the tenants to the lower appellate Court. No cross-objections challenging the amount of enhancement granted by the trial Court were however filed by the landlord. The learned Judge in appeal however varied the decrees of the trial Court by allowing 60 per cent of the net profit to the landlord. The present appeals are therefore by the tenant defendants.

(3.) The first point urged in support of the appeals by the learned advocate for the tenant defendants is that the finding of the Courts below on the question of status is vitiated by error of law. Inasmuch as the learned Judge based his finding on certain circumstances and facts which are not relevant evidence at all. It is argued by the learned advocate that the learned Judge should not have taken into consideration the fact that the tenants belonged to Bhadraloke class. It is further argued that the learned Judge fell into an error in thinking that khas possession of the land by the tenants now is not material evidence for the purpose of finding out the original purpose for which the tenancies were created. These contentions have no substance. The Record of Rights clearly shows these tenants to be tenure holders. The onus was upon them to rebut this presumption. In order to rebut the presumption, the tenants wanted to rely upon certain facts, one of the facts being that the lands are now in the khas possession of the tenants themselves. The learned Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the present possession through Bhagidars is not inconsistent with their status being that of tenure holders. I am therefore of opinion that the finding of the Courts below on the question of status is not based on any inadmissible or irrelevant evidence and is therefore not vitiated by any error of law.