RAMRANBIJAYA PRASAD SINGH Vs. RAM KAWAL UPADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Letters Patent is from the decision of Imam J. in a Second Appeal.

(2.) The material facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff-landlord sued the tenant- defendants for arrear rent at the annual rate of RS. 194/8/-. The plaintiff claimed that in the year 1988 the Revenue Officer had reduced the annual rent to Rs. 194/8/- under Section 112-A(1)(d), Bihar Tenancy Act. The defence was that in the year 1910 the Revenue Officer had reduced the annual rent to Rs. 116/3/- according to the rent reduction schedule, EX. B. The trial Court granted a decree at the reduced rate of Rs. 116/3/-. In first appeal the Subordinate Judge considered that the second reduction was ultra vires and granted a decree at the rate claimed in the plaint. In the second appeal, Imam J. reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge holding that the second reduction was not ultra vires, that plaintiff was entitled to realise rent only at the rate of RS. 116/3/-. In reaching his decision Imam J. relied on the Division Bench case, Sir Badri Das Goenka v. Rajkumar Singh A.I.R. 1945 pat. 272, and, on certain obiter dicta of Fazl Ali C.J. in the Full Bench case, M.B. Ram Ranbijay Pd. Singh V/s. Ramagya Kuer A.I.R. 1946 Pat. 354.

(3.) The critical question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Rent Reduction Officer had jurisdiction to reduce rent for the second time under Section 112A(1)(d) within the period prohibited under Section 113 of the Act. The reply to this question depends on the proper construction of Section 112A, Section 112B and Section 113, Bihar Tenancy Act.