DWARKA NATH SEN Vs. DHANOO GOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are by the Proprietor of Touzi No. 9945 of village Gobindpur against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya reversing the decision of the Munsif of Gaya in a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration that the order of the Rent Reduction Officer dated 21 March 1939 reducing the rent of a number of occupancy holdings described in the schedule attached to the plaint was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit, but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it, hence these second appeals. The case of the parties has been put quite clearly and succinctly in the following passage which I quote from the judgment of the trial Court: The plaintiff's case is that the defendants of these suits who are the occupancy raiyats of \ his takhta in village Gobindpur filed a number of applications under Section 112 A(1), Bihar Tenancy Aot, before the Rent Eeduotion Officer for the reduction of the rents of their holdings. It is said that the Rent Seduction Officer allowed reduotion in an arbitrary manner and without the service of any notice on the plaintiff. Plaintiff's further allegation is that the non-service of notice and the arbitrary reduction were due to the collusion between his mortgagee (the pro forma defendants) and the tenant defendants. All the defendants exoept defendants 5, 7, 8, 19, and 21 in suit No. 108 and defendant 3 in suits Nos. 110 and 111 have appeared and have filed written statements. Besides pleading limitation and challenging the maintainability of these suits on the ground of multifariousness, their contention is that the orders of the Rent Eeduotion Officer passed under different clauses of Section 112A, Bihar Tenanoy Act, are quite legal and not without jurisdiction and as such they cannot be challenged in a oivil Court. They also deny the allegation of non-service of notice and assert that the orders of reduction were passed to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his ijaradars after due contest of the application filed under Section 112A (1), Bihar Tenanoy Act.

(2.) It appears that at the time of the rent reduction proceedings the plaintiff's tauzi was in the possession of the two ijaradars, namely, Doma Shah and Lalji Sah. The rules which have been framed to be made applicable to the rent reduction proceedings under the Bihar Tenancy Act are to be found in chap. 7B. The main rules which may be referred to here are Rules 115 and 117 and 114. It may be recalled that under Section 112A two alternative cases are provided for. It is provided in the first place that if the Governor by notification directs that a settlement of the rent of the occupancy holdings situated in any area or of any class or classes of occupancy holdings situated in any area shall be made under this section then rent may be reduced under the various sub-clauses of the section by the Collector of his own motion or on the application of a landlord or occupancy raiyat for settlement of rent; secondly, it provides that the Collector may also reduce the rent as provided in the section on the application of an occupancy raiyat or a landlord made in the prescribed form. Prom this section, it is clear that the Collector can reduce rent of his own motion in certain cases and may also reduce in certain cases the rent on the application of an occupancy raiyat or a landlord. He can reduce rent of his own motion if there is a notification by the Governor but otherwise he will do so on the application of the occupancy raiyat or a landlord. R. 115 provides for the promulgation of a general notice when the Governor has issued a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 112A. The notice according to this rule shall state that on the date and place specified therein the Collector will settle the rents and it further provides that such notice shall be served at least one month previous to the date fixed for settlement of rent. R. 117 runs as follows: If the landlord or a tenant of any occupancy holding referred to in the notice served under Rule 115 does not attend after service of the said notice has been proved, the procedure may be ex parte. Provided that when the Collector proposes to alter the existing rent of any occupancy holding and the ;parties have not attended in compliance with the notice served under Rule 115, the Collector shall serve on each person interested a special notice, and the rent of such holding shall not be altered in the absence of such person until after the service of such special notice has been proved.

(3.) Rule 114 provides that Rule 82 and certain other rules shall apply as far as may be to applications under Section 112A. R. 82 is to the following effect: When the landlord or tenant applies for the settlement of a fair rent, he shall be considered as plaintiff and the opposite party as defendant. The proceedings shall be dealt with as suits and, subject to the directions contained in Rules 84 to 87 of this Chapter, the Revenue Officers shall adopt, as far as it is applicable, the procedure laid down in the Civil P. C. for the trial of suits.