SADASHEO RAMJI BENDE Vs. GOPALA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. I have heard counsel for the appellant in this case but found it unnecessary to call on to the respondent's pleader to reply. It is perfectly clear to my mind that the present plaintiff-appellant has mistaken his remedy in the present case. It is not denied that portions of fields Nos. 64, 67 and 68 were acquired by Government in 1923, and it is equally clear from the lower appellate Court's judgment that the rent of the holding has been accordingly proportionately reduced.

(2.) THE present plaintiff-appellant for some reason or other, which it is difficult to understand, urges that it was for the defendant to take the initiative in having the rent reduced under Section 62, Tenancy Act, but it is perfectly clear that it was also open to the landlord to initiate proceedings under the said provision. As a matter of fact, p. 71, Land Acquisition Manual, lays down the proper procedure to be followed in a case like the present and if there was any failure on the part of the land acquisition officials to take the necessary steps, it was open to the present plaintiff-appellant to initiate the necessery proceedings under Section 62, C.P. Tenancy Act. I know of no reason why it was peculiarly incumbent on the tenant to move in the matter and, in any event, neither law nor equity would justify this Court in decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's claim against the defendant-respondent when it is admitted and clear that the whole rent is now not in reality leviable from him in view of the diminution of the area of his holding.