C SRINIVASA AIYANGAR Vs. MEDDAIKARA ABDUR RAHIM SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises is one for arrears of rent under Section 77 (1) of Act I of 1908. The rent. sued for is in excess of that paid in previous faslis, the difference being due to an increase in wet area discovered by re-survey. The District Judge has disposed of the appeal on the short ground that the suit for excess rent will not lie, until the landlord has obtained an order of the Collector under Section 42(2) sanctioning the enhancement.

(2.) I think he is right. Section 42 declares that no alteration of rent in respect of an alteration in area shall be given effect to, except under an order of the Collector passed on an application made to him for that purpose. Admittedly there has been no such application here. The ryot is, therefore, not liable to pay the additional rent claimed.

(3.) The question of whether a suit for enhanced rent (whatever be the cause of enhancement) can be brought without first enforcing the acceptance of a patta embodying the enhanced rent, on which a long argument was addressed to us, does not really arise in this case.