DWARKANATH MANDAL Vs. SRIGOBINDA CHOUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants which arises out of a suit for rent which was dismissed by the Munsif, but an appeal by the plaintiff was decreed by the Subordinate Judge. The points which are urged on behalf of the appellants are three in number. The suit was for rent for the years 1326 to 1330. With regard to the rent of 1326 no decree has been made in favour of the plaintiff, as it was barred by limitation. The facts which gave rise to the question in controversy are these: The estate of the plaintiff was under the management of the Court of Wards. The Manager of the Court of Wards applied for a certificate to be filed to the Certificate Officer for rent alleged to be due on account of this tenure from the year 1326 to the year 1329 B.S. The certificate was filed. On the objection of the defendants made under Section 9, Public Demands Recovery Act 3 of 1919 (B.C.), the Certificate Officer cancelled the certificate. The objection was that the rent was to be suspended on account of the defendants having been dispossessed at the instance of the plaintiff, of about 12 bighas of land. The tenure of the plaintiff consists, we are told, of about 100 bighas. The Certificate Officer apparently held that under the circumstances proved the landlord was not entitled to receive any rent. The contention in the Court below was that on account of this decision of the Certificate Officer the plaintiff is pecluded from suing for rent for the period covered by the decision of the Certificate Officer, and the same argument has been addressed before us which includes the rent for the years 1327 to 1329 B.S. The Subordinate Judge held that in the present case the Certificate Officer filed the certificate without any jurisdiction and, therefore, his order must be treated as if non-existent. It is, however, argued on behalf of the appellants that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in his conclusion.

(2.) It is submitted in the first place that the Certificate Officer took cognizance of the requisition for filing the certificate with jurisdiction, and he had also juris-diction to make the order cancelling the certificate. That being so his order should be treated as the order of a Court of special jurisdiction and as the order was made in the exercise of the jurisdiction of that Court, that order should operate as res judicata in the present case. A third point was urged that upon the facts found that the defendants had been deprived of 12 bighas of the lands comprising his tenure there should be total suspension of rent.

(3.) With regard to the last point raised as regards the total suspension of rent the Subordinate Judge found that in the pattah granted to the defendants the lands are included in several schedules and each schedule containing different plots of land was separately assessed. The lands of which the defendants have been dispossessed are included in one schedule the rent for which was Es. 3 odd per year. Upon that finding the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there should be abatement of rent by that amount, and he gave a decree for the balance at the rate of Rs. 35-10-6. This question of suspension of rent has been elaborately dealt with by me in the case of Susil Kumar Biswas V/s. Rajani Kanta where I have endeavoured to examine the question from all points of view with reference to the decided cases, and I do not propose to travel over the same grounds. In the present case the point appears to me to be covered by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Katyayani Debi V/s. Udey Kumar Das although in this case the rent WAS not fixed at so much per bigha. It was fixed for each schedule separately; and, therefore, it falls within that decision, I think, therefore, that the learned Subordinate Judge is right in his view that there should be no suspension of rent in this case but only abatement of rent as ordered by him.