SYED MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. TARA MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the plaintiff is the appellant. He brought a suit asking for a declaration that the reduction of rent allowed by the Revenue Officers under Section 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, in respect of the holding recorded in khata Nos. 14, 18 and 21 of village Shaikhopur Narsanda was illegal and not binding on him. By a notification dated 19 June 1937, the Government of Bihar invested certain Revenue Officers with the power to settle rents, and, when settling rents, to reduce rents under Section 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, (hereafter called the Act). On a petition filed by the respondents, a reduction of rent under Section 112 of the Act was made by the Assistant Settlement Officer, reducing the rent by 25 per cent. It appears that, subsequently, the Settlement Officer further reduced the rent by six annas in the rupee. The Munsif dismissed the suit with reference to the order of reduction by 25 per cent, but decreed it with respect to the order of reduction by six annas in the rupee. The Subordinate Judge in appeal reversed, the decision of the Munsif and dismissed the suit entirely, allowing the cross objection of the respondents against the decision of the Munsif decreeing the suit with respect to the order of reduction of rent by six annas in the rupee.

(2.) In order to appreciate the argument made on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to state some further facts. It appears that on 7 February 1933, there was a compromise between the appellant and the respondents in a proceeding under Section 40 of the Act. On 22 May, 1934, a schedule was prepared by the revenue Court showing the extent of the commuted rent with the direction that it would take effect from 1 September 1933. It was pointed out that Section 40A of the Act directs that where the rent of a holding has been commuted under Section 40, it shall not be reduced for 15 years save on the ground of alteration of the area of the holding or under Clauses (b), (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A. Before the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1937 (Bihar Act 8 of 1937), the words "or on the ground specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 38" appeared in Section 40A of the Act instead of the words "or under Clauses (b), (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A." It was urged that s, 40A of the Act expressly prohibited reduction of rent which had been commuted under Section 40 before the expiry of 15 years from the date on which the order commuting the rent was to take effect except on the grounds mentioned in that section. Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad No. 1 appearing for the appellant submitted that the reduction of rent in this case had not been made on the ground of alteration in the area of the holding. Indeed, that appears to be the admitted position. He urged that the only other ground on which there could be a reduction of rent within 15 years was under Clauses (b), (c) or (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A. Section 40A however, does not provide for reduction of rent under Section 112 as one of the grounds on which reduction could be made within 15 years. As the Revenue Officers had reduced the rent under Section 112 and not under Section 112A, such a reduction was made without jurisdiction. The learned advocate for the appellant contended that this was not a case of improper exercise" of jurisdiction but one of want of jurisdiction. He further pointed out that in June 1937, Section 112A formed no part of the Act whereas Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 38 did. In short, his argument comes to this that in view of the provisions of Section 40A prohibiting reduction of rent commuted under Section 40 within 15 years except under the conditions mentioned therein, the Revenue Officers had no jurisdiction to reduce the rent under Section 112 of the Act. On behalf of the appellants it was also submitted that in any event the Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to further reduce the rent to the extent of 6 annas in the rupee when the appellant had withdrawn his objection before him to the reduction made by the Assistant Settlement Officer. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that, even assuming that rent could be reduced under Section 112 of the Act, the notification dated 19 June 1937, of the Government of Bihar published in the Bihar Gazette really directed reduction of rent which had been fixed between the years 1920 and 1932. As the rent in this case had been commuted in 1933 the Revenue Officers had no jurisdiction to reduce the rent which had been commuted after 1932. The learned advocate for the appellant laid emphasis on para. 1 of the notification which reads thus: Whereas it appears to the Government of Bihar that between 1920 and 1932 in fixing or enhancing money rents and in commuting produce rents in the district of Patna regard, was had to the "exceptionally high prices of staple food crops which prevailed in and about that period, and that in view of the present exceptionally low level of prices, the rents so fixed may now be unfair and inequitable and whereas the Government of Bihar is satisfied that in the interests of the local welfare it is necessary to exercise the powers conferred on it by Section 112, Bihar Tenancy Act.

(3.) Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad No. 1 reads these words to mean that it was only the rents fixed between the years 1920 and 1932 which were authorised by the Government of Bihar to be reduced. He laid particular emphasis on the words, "the rents so fixed may now be unfair and inequitable." These words according to him meant that it was only the rents fixed between the years 1920 and 1932 that were directed to be settled and, if necessary, be reduced. The learned advocate for the respondents contended that the Revenue Officers acted with jurisdiction, and, if in any way they acted improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction, it was beyond the competence of the Civil Courts to give a declaratory decree of the kind asked for by the plaintiff. He pointed out that the notification of the Bihar Government dated 19 June 1937, did confer on the Revenue Officers concerned the power to settle all rents and, when settling rents, to reduce them if, in their opinion, the maintenance of the existing rents would be unfair, and inequitable. He urged that Section 112 of the Act was a general provision, uncontrolled by Section 40A, conferring authority upon the Provincial Government to invest Revenue Officers with the power to settle all rents and reduce them if they were unfair or inequitable. He pointed out that Sub-section (2A) of Section 112 of the Act directs that a settlement of rents under that section shall be made in the manner provided by Secs.104 to 104J (both inclusive) of the Act. He drew our attention to the proviso to Section 104A which reads as follows: Provided that, in making any such settlement, regard shall be had to the principles laid down in Secs.6 to 9 (both inclusive), 27 to 36 (both inclusive), 39, 43, 50 to 52 (both inclusive), Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A, Section 180 and Section 191. Sub-section (2A) of Section 112 and the proviso to Section 104A read together clearly indicate that a Revenue Officer, vested with the powers under Section 112, could reduce the rent which had been commuted under Section 40. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A, specifically authorised reduction of rents commuted under Section 40 or by agreement between the tenant and the landlord of such holding. It was also urged in the alternative, on behalf of the respondents that, as the rent in this case had been commuted according to compromise arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, it could not be said that such a commutation was one under Section 40 of the Act. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 40A were inapplicable to the case. Therefore, even if Section 40A should at all be read as controlling Section 112, it was irrelevant for the purposes of this case. As for further reduction of rent to the extent of 6 annas in the rupee by the Settlement Officer, it was pointed out that under Section 104E, Sub-section (2), the Revenue Officer could, on his own motion, revise any rent, entered in a Settlement Rent-roll before it was submitted to the confirming authority under Section 104F.