SARODA PROSAD PAKRASI Vs. UMASANKAR SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter there are sis appeals arising in six rent suits, which were disposed of in the first Court and in the lower appellate Court by one judgment in each Court. The plaintiffs are three batches of co-sharer landlords and the tenants defendants are the same in each suit. The remaining co-sharer landlords are the pro forma defendants. The plaintiffs claimed rent and a right to enhance the rent in each case. In the trial Court the plaintiff's succeeded and the learned subordinate Judge of Pabna decreed the suits and assessed the rent at double the existing rent in the respective cases.

(2.) The tenants defendants appealed to the Additional District Judge and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the rent was not enhanceable but that it was fixed in perpetuity and consequently he allowed the appeals. The plaintiff landlords appealed to this Court.

(3.) The first point to which it is necessary for me to refer is the argument which was addressed by the learned advocate for the respondents, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suits by reason of the provisions of Section 168 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which the learned District Judge arrived in that respect having regard to the terms of the kabuliyat, which is printed at page ?0 of the paper- book containing the additional papers, and having regard to the other facts of the case. I need say no more than that I agree with the conclusions of the learned District Judge and the learned Subordinate Judge, namely, that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suits.