SRIKISHUN SINGH Vs. RAM JANAM RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals by the landlords have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Munsif involving a consideration of a common question of law. The appellants sued for recovery of arrears of rent for 1346 to four annas kist of 1350 Fasli. In the plaint they set out how the three holdings in the three suits came to be constituted as the result of a splitting up of an original single holding. The tenant defendants by a registered deed of partition bearing date 21-8-1928, effected a partition of the original holding and> handed over the partition deed to the landlords-all of whom agreed to the splitting up of the holding. It was alleged that each of the tenants was liable to pay rent annually at the rate of Rs. 11-8-6. It was also stated in the plaint; that in the year 1939 the deceased father of one of the defendants made an application for reduction of rent of the original holding ignoring the splitting up into three holdings, and the rent reduction officer reduced the rental of that holding, from Rs. 37 odd to Rs. 19-11 9, and this he had no jurisdiction to do. The plaintiffs therefore-asked that a decree be passed against the defendants in the three suits at one-third of the original rental.

(2.) The plea of the defendants in each suit was that there was no splitting up of the holding, that the partition deed was not acted upon, and that the rent reduction proceedings were with jurisdiction and could not be ignored.

(3.) The trial Court came to these conclusions: (1) that the original holding had been split up. into three holdings, (a) that the application to the rent reduction officer was made by a single-tenant with regard to the original holding which was no longer existing, (3) that all the landlords and all the defendants were not parties to the rent reduction proceedings, and (A) that the rent reduction officer was never asked to reduce the rental of the three holdings. On these findings he came to the conclusion that the rent reduction officer had total lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly he decreed the suits against the defendants as claimed by the plaintiffs.