PRIYANATH PAL Vs. TARINI CHARAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of the argument which has been addressed to us by Mr. Roy, and in which I was personally much interested, I do not think we should interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge; the short ground is that it is common knowledge that the Bengal Tenancy Act was an Act passed in the interests of tenants, and it is also common knowledge that rents are sometimes paid in money, sometimes in kind, and sometimes partly in money and partly in kind; and when I find the words of Section 30 are, The landlord of a holding, held at a money rent," I think it must he taken that the Statute is referring to a tenancy where the rent is solely payable in money. That is borne out not only by the words of the section itself, but also by the words of the other sections to which Mr. Roy drew Four attention, especially Section 38, as to which I made some remarks during the course of the argument which I need not repeat.

(2.) For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed with costs. Asutosh Mookerjee, J.

(3.) I agree.