NAGENDRA LAL CHOWDHURY Vs. HAMDOO MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 28th April 1914, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Hathazari. The suit was brought to recover arrears of rent due under a contract of tenancy. The exact nature of the tenancy it is not necessary for us to consider. But the defendant had executed in favour of the plaintiff a kabuliyat Under that kabuliyat, the defendant undertook to pay for the land certain rent which is mentioned in the body of the document as the aforesaid rent. The amount of the rent is written down at the head of the kabuliyat as the consolidated rent or the total rent. The question is, "is the item before the total is arrived at given as the jama, the rent, and the other items in arriving at the total are abwabs or illegal exactions by the landlord?" I am of opinion that the view taken by the lower Courts in this case cannot be supported. The rent is arrived at, it is true, by taking into consideration certain items. But what was agreed to be paid was the consolidated rent of Rs. 13, by three instalments---one of Rs. 5, and two of Rs. 4, on the particular dates mentioned in the document and the tenant in consideration of having the grant of the land to him undertook to pay that Rs. 13 by those particular instalments. The case is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Radha Charan Ray Chowdhry v. Golak Chandra Ghose 31 C. 834 : 8 C.W.N. 529. There being no other dispute between the parties except as to what amount should be recovered, we set aside the orders of the two lower Courts and decree the plaintiff s suit for the amount claimed by him in his plaint. The amount claimed will bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum from to- day until realization. The plaintiff must have his costs both in this appeal and in the two lower Courts. Richardson, J.

(2.) I agree.