MAHADEO RAI Vs. RAM RAN BIJAY PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in this appeal by the defendants is that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the second order passed by the Bent Reduction Officer in a proceeding for reduction of rent was ultra vires and should be ignored.

(2.) The facts found are that at the instance of the appellants the rent of the holding in suit was reduced on 20-12-1939, from Rs. 24-3-9 to Rs. 21-7-0. This order was passed under the provisions of Section 112A(1)(d), Bihar Tenancy Act, in case No. 20787. In case No. 20950 another order was passed on 18-1-1940, that is to say, within a few days of the first order in which also the rent of the same holding was reduced at the instance of the same tenants from Rupees 24-3- 9 to Rs. 12. This application was also made under the provisions of Section 112A (1)(d), Bihar Tenancy Act. That this is so appears clearly from the record: indeed it was conceded by the learned pleader on behalf of the tenants in the Court below because the learned Subordinate Judge said: It is also conceded on behalf of the learned pleader on behalf of the respondents that one application in case No. 20787 was also based under the aforesaid Sub-section of Section 112A. That being the position, it follows in our opinion, that the Rent Reduction Officer had no jurisdiction to reduce the rent. If the second application contained materials different from those upon which the first application was founded the matter may have been different. The facts found, therefore, in the present case distinguish the case in B.D. Goenka V/s. Rajkumar Singh A.I.R. 1945 Pat. 272. In that case the head-note states accurately that where rent was reduced under Section 112 and again in the next year the rent was further reduced under Section 112A(1)(d), the second reduction could not be held to be ultra vires as there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction, because the first application under which the rent was reduced was under Section 112 whereas the second application was under an entirely different section, namely, Section 112A (1)(d). The position here, as we have just indicated, is entirely different. First rent was reduced under Section 112A(1)(d) and the second rent reduction was also made under the provisions of the same section of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has accurately stated the position in his judgment, namely there are two orders passed by the Bent Reduction Officer on the same ground. That being the position, the civil Court has jurisdiction to ignore the second order in view of the provisions of. Section 113 of the Bihar Tenancy Act.

(3.) For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.