JANKI SINGH Vs. JEVANANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by certain landlords whose rent suit has been dismissed. The suit was brought under Section 148-A, Tenancy Act, for recovery of rent for the years 1337 to 1340 in respect of a holding comprising khatas Nos. 222 and 921. The area of the holding was given as about 6 bighas and the rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 42-6-2 excluding cess. The respondents who were the defendants in the suit pleaded that the holding included a further area of l.50 acres, being part of plot No. 3751 which they said had also been settled with them with a total rental of Rs. 42-14-5. They did not dispute that rent at that rate was due. The trial Court found that the tenants contentions regarding the area and the rent were correct and that that issue had already been decided in a previous suit so long ago as the year 1928. It found that the landlords were not entitled to a rent decree as the suit had been brought in respect of a portion of the holding, and passed a money decree at the rate claimed in the plaint but without costs. On appeal the District Judge held that the landlords were not even entitled to a money decree and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE tenants relied on Keshava Prasad Singh V/s. Mathura Kuar AIR 1922 Pat 608, where it was held that a rent decree could not be passed in respect of a portion of a holding as the effect would be to allow a splitting up of the tenancy without ascertainment of the portion of the rent which was due from the particular portion of the holding for which the rent had been claimed. It does not appear that the question of passing a money decree was considered in that case. In Rambeas Tewari V/s. Akhauri Raj Mohan Sahay AIR 1932 Pat 304 a money decree was passed in a rent suit brought in respect of a portion of the holding. In that case the question of the area of the holding was at issue in a separate suit in which an appeal was pending in the High Court at the time of the plaint, and in those circumstances a money decree was allowed. I think, however, that the principle laid down in this case should be followed here. THEre is an obligation to pay rent apart from the Tenancy Act, and the tenants admitted that rent was due at the rate claimed. THE landlords were to blame for ignoring the previous judicial decisions in their plaint, but I do not think that this is a case where their entire suit should have been dismissed. I therefore allow this appeal and restore the order of the Munsif passing a money decree, but without costs.