MUHAMMAD ABDUL QAIYUM Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the suit giving rise to the present appeal the plaintiff-appellant assailed the validity of the action of the revenue authorities in granting remissions of rent payable by agricultural tenants to the plaintiff in the years 1339 and 1340 Fasli. It is a matter of admission that under a general scheme formulated by the local Government, the Collectors of various districts in the United Provinces issued slips to the tenants in 1339 and 1340 Fasli declaring remissions in rent payable by them and that the tenants had the benefit of the remissions so granted. The plaintiff, appellant, who owns zamindari property in certain villages in the districts of Bareilly and Pilibhit, brought the suit at which this appeal arises against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the defendant was not legally authorized to issue remission slips to the tenants of the plaintiff or in any way to interfere, by means of "arbitrary executive orders", with the rates of rent settled between the plaintiff and his tenants, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the contracts entered into between the plaintiff and his tenants as regards the rate of rent. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree for a sum of Rupees 4974-10-9 against the defendant on account of the damages sustained by him in consequence of the remissions in rent granted to the tenants.

(2.) The plaintiff's case briefly was that the rent payable by the tenants is usually fixed by means of contracts entered into between the plaintiff and his tenants or by decrees of Revenue Courts and that the defendant is not constitutionally authorized to ignore the existing contracts between the landlords and tenants, nor is he entitled to in any way modify such contracts by means of "arbitrary executive orders." The plaintiff added that the rent fixed by contracts or by decrees of Revenue Courts can be reduced or enhanced only by means of decrees passed in a regular suit by the Revenue Court and not other, wise. He alleged that the tenants after getting remission slips refused to pay to him the amounts remitted and thus he was put to a loss of Rs. 4974-10-9. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit. He pleaded that the remission was made under Section 73, Agra Tenancy Act, and Section 74 of the said-Act was a bar to the suit; that if the plaintiff regarded the remission as unauthorized and illegal he could have sued the tenants for recovery of the full amount of rent and as he failed to do so, he was himself responsible for the loss suffered by him; that the Secretary of State did not issue any remission slips to the tenants and therefore a claim for the declaration of the invalidity of such slips was not maintainable ; that the. Secretary of State was not interfering with the rate settled between the plaintiff and his tenants and therefore no injunction could be issued against him; that the Secretary of State was not liable for the torts of his servants and the suit for damages was not maintainable against him even if the remission slips issued by the Collectors were unauthorized, and lastly that the suit was frivolous and vexatious and the defendant was entitled to compensatory costs under Section 35- A, Civil P.C. On the pleadings of the parties, the material issues that arose for determination in the suit were : (1) Was the suit barred by Section 74, Agra Tenancy Act? (2) Was any damage caused to the plaintiff by any illegal act of defendant's servants and was the defendant liable for the same? (3) Was the defendant responsible for the remission illips issued by the District authorities and was the plaintiff entitled to the declaratory relief prayed for by him? (4) Was the plaintiff entitled to the injunction claimed? (5) Whether the suit for damages on the ground of tort of defendant's servants was maintainable against the defendant?