DULHIN JAGTRAJ KUER Vs. SINGASAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the decree-holders against a decision of the 1 Additional Subordinate Judge of Arrah confirming on appeal an order of the 1 Munsif of Sasaram who allowed an application under Section 15(b), Bihar Act, 9 [IX] of 1938, holding that the decree-holders were not entitled to realise the entire amount of their decree because the rental had been reduced by proceedings under Section 112A(1)(d); Bihar Tenancy Act.

(2.) It is undisputed that there were proceedings before the Rent Reduction Officer Deputy Collector who passed a certain order for reduction of rent, the details of which I will consider later. This order was confirmed on appeal by the Collector. There was then an application to the Commissioner who passed the order (Ex. A- 1) which was produced in this Court for the respondents and taken in evidence here. He refused to interfere with the order passed on appeal by the Collector, but on a further application to the Board of Revenue an order (Ex. A) was passed on 8 October 1942 setting aside the orders of the Rent Reduction Officer and directing that the reduction, if any, should be made on the basis of the prices current in 1938 and 1939. The lower Courts held on the basis of a decision of this Court in Radha Krishnaji V/s. Ramkhelawan Singh (43) 1943 P.W.N. 253 that the order of the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction. That decision was confirmed on appeal under the provisions of the Letters Patent and the appellate decision is reported in Radha Krishnaji V/s. Ramkhelawan Singh A.I.R. 1945 Pat. 179. Now I do not think it is necessary to consider very closely whether the order of the Board of Revenue might be held in this case as consistent with the decision of this Court in Radha Krishnaji V/s. Ramkhelawan Singh A.I.R. 1945 Pat. 179, because even if it is accepted that the orders of the Board of Revenue were without jurisdiction there still remains the question whether the orders of the Rent Reduction Officer and the orders of the Collector on appeal under Section 112B, Bihar Tenancy Act, were with jurisdiction.

(3.) The following facts are apparent from the evidence on the record in this case. The tenants, who are now the judgment-debtor-respondents applied to the Rent Reduction Officer for reduction of rent on the basis that the current rent was Rs. 173-8 apart from cess and that this rent had been payable since the year 1912. The landlord appeared and contested the proceedings and his case was that the rental had originally been as alleged by the tenants but that in the year 1926 or 1927 the rental was enhanced by a suit but that from the year 1846 Fasli the enhancement had been cancelled by mutual agreement between him and the tenants. The tenants then turned round and conceded that there had been enhancement of the rental by a suit and further alleged that they had no knowledge of any cancellation of the enhancement. Prom the judgment of the Commissioner (Ex. A-1) it is clear that the Rent Reduction Officer accepted the case of enhancement but did not accept the case that the enhancement had been cancelled and proceeded to reduce "the enhanced rent." Now it is quite clear that there was no application before him for reduction of any such enhanced rent. The tenants had applied for a reduction of the rental of Rs. 178-8-0 though they subsequently agreed that that rental had been enhanced.