ANANT LAL MANDER Vs. SURAJNARAIN SHAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in the original action. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of 24. 47 acres of land comprised in holding No. 810 situated in village Ekchari. The arrears related to the years 1347-1350 FS. The appellants claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 81 besides cess. The defence was that the rent of the holding had been reduced to Rs. 53-1-0 by the Collector under the provisions of Section 112-A, Bihar Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif, who decided the suit in the first instance, held that the order of the Collector reducing rent was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as no notice had been served on the appellants. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal came to a contrary finding, namely, that the order of the Collector reducing rent was with jurisdiction, and, therefore, binding on the parties. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit on the basis of the reduced rental, namely, Rs. 63- 1-0 besides cess and interest at the usual rates.

(2.) The only question which now arises for consideration is whether the order of the Collector reducing the rental of the holding under the provisions of Section 112-A, Bihar Tenancy Act was with or without jurisdiction. It would be convenient to clear the ground by stating the facts which have been found by the final Court of fact in connection with the question. The Court of appeal below has found that a special notice as required by Rule 117, of the Government rules made under the Bihar Tenancy Act was issued in the name of one of the plaintiffs, Anant Lal (plaintiff 1), and was served on his servant or agent, Kalkatti Mander. It has been further found that this agent or servant Kalkatti Mander appeared in the rent reduction proceedings and the order was made in his presence. With regard to the other plaintiff, namely, plaintiff 2, it has been found that no notice was issued in his name. This plaintiff is the nephew of plaintiff 1, and the finding is that they are members of a joint family. There is a further finding that plaintiff 1, was the karta of the joint family and the, collection of the joint family was joint. In view of these findings, the learned Additional District Judge held that the order of the Collector reducing the rental of the holding was with jurisdiction and, therefore binding on the parties.

(3.) As far as plaintiff 1, is concerned, the question is concluded by a decision of this Court in Dwarka Nath V/s. Dhanoo Gopi A.I.R. 1915 Pat. 320 where it was held that an order reducing the rent of an occupancy holding made under Section 112- A, Bihar Tenancy Act, was not without jurisdiction merely because the notice required to be given under Rule 117 was served upon a person who was not an agent of the landlord holding a written authority from him within the meaning of Section 187 of the Act. It was pointed out there that there was a fundamental distinction between non-service and service which was somewhat irregular, and it was observed that any irregularity in the service of notice cannot by itself be held to affect the jurisdiction of the Rent Reduction Officer in dealing with the application made by the tenants for reduction of their rent. In view of this decision, it must be held that there was no want of jurisdiction so far as one of the plaintiffs was concerned, inasmuch as the notice issued to him was served on his servant or agent, even though that servant or agent was not authorised in writing to receive the notice. As to the other plaintiff, the finding is that he was a member of a joint family of which plaintiff 1-was the karta. The further finding is that the collection of the family was joint, and that plaintiff 1 as the karta represented the interest of the joint family in the zamindari. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge held that notice on the karta must be held to be notice on the other members of the family, and the order of the Rent Reduction officer was not without jurisdiction. Rule 117 provides that when the Collector proposes to alter the existing rent of any occupancy holding and the parties have not attended in compliance with the notice served under Rule 115, the Collector shall serve on each person interested a special notice, and the rent of such holding shall not be altered in the absence of such person until after the service of such special notice has been proved. In the case before us, a special notice was issued, service whereof was proved on the agent of the karta of the joint family. The karta represented the other members of the joint family, and in the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that Rule 117 has not been complied with. The karta had received notice, and it appears that in the rent reduction proceedings the karta had entered appearance through his agent or servant. In my judgment, the learned Additional District Judge had taken the Correct view of the matter and the order of the Rent Reduction Officer in this particular case was not without jurisdiction.