PROBODH CHANDRA MITRA Vs. INDRA CHANDRA CHAULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the facts as found by the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court of Appeal below it does not appear that the defendant-respondent was evicted from the land which he held under the plaintiff by title paramount. The Subordinate Judge seems to be in error in holding that the rent claimed by the plaintiff is not due and payable by the defendant. We have been referred to a consent decree. It is argued that according to the terms of that decree in the event of the defendant refusing to cultivate the land and to render the plaintiff his share of the produce, the only remedy which the plaintiff has is to eject the defendant. As I understand the decree, however, the clause relating to ejectment is in the nature of a clause for re-entry and the document has not the effect of depriving the plaintiff as landlord of his ordinary right as such to sue for the arrears of rent due by the tenant. In this view the appeal should be allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside and the decree of the Trial Court restored with costs throughout. Beachcroft, J.

(2.) I agree.