SHYAMA CHARAN GHOSE Vs. FAKIR CHANDRA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, in which the defendant is the appellant, arise out of suits for enhancement of rent on the ground of increase in the price of staple foodcrops. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancies in question are occupancy holdings and liable as such to enhancement under the provisions of Section 30 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) The main defence was that -the tenancies are holdings at fixed rate and are not liable to enhancement. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiff and gave a decree. On appeal by the defendant that decision was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the appeals being dismissed and the cross-appeals of the plaintiff allowed with costs.

(3.) The defendant has now appealed to this Court and two points have been urged on his behalf. The first contention has reference to Secs.50, 102(b) and 115 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is argued that the entry in the Record of Eights describing the tenancies as kaimi settled raiyats is not an entry in compliance with the provisions of Section 102(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that that being so, the presumption arising under Section 50 of the Act is not taken away. I do not think there is any substance in this contention. One of the classes expressly specified in Section 102(b) for record is that of settled raiyat, and in view of the fact that the proceeding portion of the section authorizes the Settlement Officer to include other particulars, it cannot, in my opinion be held that the addition of the word kaimi has the effect of making the entry a bad entry, so as to bar the operation of Section 50 of the Act.