TETAR MAHTON Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant in this case. The suit was for arrears of rent for the years 1346 to 1348 Fasli. The rate of rental demanded was Rs. 119-9-0 per annum. Out of the total, the defendant was given credit for a sum of Rs. 268-12- 6. The plaintiffs contended that they were not aware of the proceedings under Section 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act, and, therefore, they were not bound by the reduction made thereunder. The defendant relied naturally upon the reduction and tried to show that the plaintiffs had knowledge, and they were bound by the orders of the Bent Reduction Officer. The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendant and held that the payment of Rs. 268-12-6 covered the whole of the amount due from the defendant and, therefore, he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held, accepting the contention of the plaintiffs, that the reduction made by the Rent Reduction Officer was without jurisdiction. That being so, the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for in the plaint.

(2.) Mr. K.N. Lal appearing on behalf of the appellant has divided his argument in three parts: That the lower appellate Court was wrong in thinking that the reduction was due to the previous enhancement; that the lower appellate Court was not justified in holding that the reduction was ultra vires for want of notice to the plaintiffs or their predecessor; and that he made an error in saying that the proceedings before the Rent Reduction Officer were taken up before a. month had expired from the date of the notice.

(3.) As I read the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I find that the lower appellate Court has set out his reasons for holding that the proceedings before the Rent Reduction Officer were ultra vires. He points-out that Gobind Lal Mahto was the father of the original plaintiff who died in 1928 or 1929, and the present proceedings started in 1937. Even then in the proceedings before the Rent Reduction Officer the name of Gobind Lal continued and, therefore, he accepted the contention of the plaintiff that, he was not a party before the Rent Reduction Officer. Then he also refers to the fact that the notices that were required under the rules framed under Section 115, and also under Section 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act, have to be issued in a certain manner and must be issued at certain time before the proceedings actually commenced. He refers to the various orders in the order-sheet and with regard to one particular order he says: In this orders, dated 20 December 1937,there is no note to indicate that, the aforesaid general notice which was ordered to be issued as per Order 1, dated 27 November 1937, was actually issued and1 duly served and that being so, and the plaintiff, that is, the original plaintiff, Sita Ram being not made a party in the rent reduction proceeding, the plaintiff's version that he had no knowledge of the rent reduction proceeding and no notice of the rent reduction proceeding was served on him, should, I think, be accepted to be true and consequently, in view of the decision of our own High Court in Nandkishore Lal V/s. Basudeo Singh A.I.R. 1942 Pat. 258, the order of the rent reduction officer reducing the jama of the rent claimed holding should, I think, be hold to be ultra vires and without jurisdiction.