BASDEO NARAIN CHOUDHURY Vs. KARU MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second-appeal. They brought Title Suit No. 65 of 1942 in the Court of the Munsif of Bihar for a declaration that the order of reduction of rent of a certain holding of 23.62 acres held by the defendants under them was void and without jurisdiction. There was also a claim for arrears of rent for the years 1347 to 12 annas kist of 1349. Previously there was a suit by the plaintiffs-against the defendants for arrears of rent in respect of the years 1344 to 1346. In that suit the claim of the plaintiffs was reduced in accordance with the order passed by the rent Reduction Officer. The claim of the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 63 of 1942 also included an amount which represented the difference between the khatian jama and the reduced rental so far as these three years, namely, 1344 to 1346, were concerned. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the order of the Rent Reduction Officer was perfectly valid and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action.

(2.) Before I proceed further, I may mention, that the annual jama of the holding besides cess was Rs. 250. The amount of cess payable annually was Rs. 3-12-0. From Exs. E and E-l, the rent schedules, it appears that the rental was first reduced to Rs. 142-6-0 and then to Rs. 124-7-0 The first reduction was under Clause (c) of Section 112A, and the second under Clause (d) of the same section. The learned trial Court gave a decree to the-plaintiff's according to the reduction made under Clause (c). Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed against the judgment of the learned Munsif. At page 19 of the Paper Book the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal and the cross-objection observed as follows : Under such circumstances, I do not quite understand why the trial Court ignored the reduction under Clause (d) and allowed the decree at the reduced rate according to Clause (c) alone. I would, therefore, allow the cross-objection and order that the reduction under Clause (d) will also be available to the respondents. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge thus allowed the cross- objection and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) A few facts need be stated here for a proper appreciation of the respective cases of the parties. The holding in question is held by as many as 24 tenants, and there are no fewer than 34 landlords. It is the admitted case of the parties that the application for reduction of rent was made only by Karu Mahton, one of the tenants. It is also an admitted fact that out of the large body of landlords only two were impleaded. These two are Basdeo Chaudhury and Kasi Chaudhury. According to the plaintiffs (vide para, 4 of the plaint--pp. 3-4 of the Paper-Book) Gopi Mahto and Paryag Mahton, two of the recorded tenants of the holding, are still alive. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the heirs of some of the other recorded tenants are alive. The main ground upon which the order of the Revenue Officer reducing the rental was challenged as having been passed without jurisdiction is that all the landlords and tenants concerned were not made parties to the rent reduction proceedings. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that only Karu Mahto filed the application for reduction as, so it was said, Karu Mahto represented the other tenants. As for the allegation in the plaint that out of so many landlords only two were impleaded, the case of the defendants was that these two looked after the affairs of the entire body of landlords, and as such were impleaded in their representative capacity. Both the Courts -below have held that there was representation and they upheld the order of the Rent Reduction Officer.