DHARANI KANTA LAHIRI CHAUDHURI Vs. AMIR SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case it appears that the landlord appellant made an application under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the settlement of fair rents in the case of each of a large number of tenants. The application came on for hearing before the Settlement Officer and judgment was delivered on the 23rd August 1912. At the close of the judgment the Settlement Officer says this: "It is now necessary to prepare schedules on the basis of the findings and in accordance with the directions given above for all the tenancies of those cases except the tenancies regarding which the claim was withdrawn. Office to prepare the schedules and to put them up. The schedules will show the fair rent settled." In accordance with that order a schedule was prepared, approved and signed by the Settlement Officer on the 14th September 1912. Then followed the Civil Court vacation. On the reopening day, the 12th November 1912, the plaintiff-landlord presented an appeal against the fair rents settled in the cases of 148 of the tenants whose tenancies were included in the schedule, to which reference has been made. The learned Special Judge dismissed that appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

(2.) It is not contested before us in this appeal that if time is to be taken as running from the 23rd August 1912, the date of the judgment, the appeal to the District Judge was barred, but it is contended that in taking that date as the starting point and not the 14th September 1912, the date on which the schedules were prepared and signed, the learned Judge has fallen into error. On behalf of the respondents it is not suggested that if 14th September be taken the appeal to the District Judge is within time. Thus the one question for our determination is whether time should be taken as running from the 23rd of August, the date of the judgment, or from the 14th of September, the date of the schedule. The learned District Judge says that the 23rd August, must be taken because by Section 109A of the Act the appeal lies not against a decree or a schedule but against a decision of the Revenue Officer and the schedule in his opinion forms no part of that decision.

(3.) Now when we turn to Section 105 we find that what the Revenue Officer is required to do is to settle fair rent in respect of the land held by the tenant, that is to say, by each tenant. No doubt in his judgment of the 23rd August 1912 the Revenue Officer did arrive at certain findings and did lay down certain principles in accordance with which fair rents were to be ascertained, but it is clear that until the fair rent to be thus calculated had been ascertained, there was in fact no decision in the case of any one of the tenants and no settlement of the rent which he had to pay. The schedule settling the rents is clearly a part of the decision and in fact read with the judgment is the decision.