ARABINDA BANDHU Vs. HARGAURI TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under the Letters Patent are from the judgment of Manohar Lall J. in the second appeals arising out of two suits for rent instituted by the appellants. The material facts are that on 19-12-1939, the tenant-defendants applied to the Revenue Officer for reduction of the rent of their holding on the ground specified in Clause (d) of Section 112A, Tenancy Act. The application wag dismissed on contest by the landlords. Three days later, they made a second application for reduction of rent on precisely the same grounds. As the result of this application the rent was reduced. The landlords, however, sued to recover at the old rate, and were met by the defence that the rent had been reduced. Their reply to this was that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to reduce the rent in view of the dismissal of the previous application under Section 112A. The appellants rely on Section 118, Tenancy Act, which provides that, when the rent of a tenure or holding has been settled or reduced under ch. 10, no such rent shall be reduced within a certain specified period save on certain grounds not material to the present appeals.

(2.) It is contended that the first order of the Revenue Officer dismissing the application for reduction of rent is a settlement of rent within the meaning of Section 113, and that, consequently, the power of the Revenue Officer to reduce the rent on the second application was barred. It is to be observed, however, that Section 113 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer to entertain a second application for reduction of rent. What is prohibited is the reduction of rent when that rent has already been settled or reduced in a proceeding under ch. 10. It follows, therefore, that when an application is made to a Revenue Officer for reduction of rent, he has to decide, if the question is raised before him, whether there has already been a settlement or reduction under ch. 10. There can be no doubt whatsoever that that is a question which he has jurisdiction to decide, and must, indeed, decide if it is raised. If it is not raised before him, his decision is not necessary on that point. But the fact that it is not raised cannot affect the jurisdiction, which he has, to entertain the application and to decide such question as legitimately arise on it.

(3.) In the present instance, the appellants did not raise before the Revenue Officer the question whether there had already been a settlement or reduction of the rent under ch. 10 so as to debar him from making an order for the reduction of the rent. The order of the Revenue Officer reducing the rent, therefore, cannot be challenged in this collateral proceeding. The appeals, therefore, fail and must be dismissed with costs, one hearing fee. Imam, J. I agree.