A.I. R.
(32) 1945 Patna 123
FAZL
ALI C. J.
Gobind Mahto and
others- Petitioners
V.
Chandra Bhan
Prasad Singh and another-Opposite Party.
Civil Reva. No. 725 of 1943, Decided on 15th September 1944,
from order of Munsif, Barh, D- 30th November 1943.
(a)
Bengal Tenancy Act (8 of 1885), S. 121- S. 121
applies to bhaoli rent. Section 121 does apply to land held on bhaoli rent: 4
(b)
29 A.1.R. 1942 Pat. 193, Foll.([P 193 C 1) (b)
Bengal Tenancy Act (8 of 1885), Ss. 121 and 40-Distraint proceedings-Ex parte
tenant-li S, 121 is abused, remedy is provided by S. 140.
Proceedings for distraint should not be regarded as suits;
they are not judicial in the sense that the Court proceeds in the absence of
the tenants and the landlord comes and gives his evidence ex parte and upon
that all that the Court is required to do is to marry the distraint out. If the
landlord abuses 8. 121, the remedy is expressly provided by 8. 140: (35) 22 A.
I. R. 1936 Pat. 154, Foll. (P 123 C1)
(c) Bengal Tenancy Act (8 of 1885), S. 121- Single application
(Qware).
Whether one single application should be entertained for
distraint in respect of the produce of a number of different holdings
Dan Sinha and Ramanugrah Narain Sinha - for
Petitioners.
Jagdish Singh - for Opposite Party.
Order:-- The
petitioners are occupancy tenants of khatas Nos. 69, 111, 138, 122, 192, and
1211 and they pay bhaoli rent for these lands. They have filed this civil revision
application against an order passed by a Munsif for the distraint of the paddy
crops on these lands under s. 121, Ben. Ten. Act, upon n application made by
the landlord claiming arrears of rent for 1350 Pasli at the rate of early Rs.
75 per bigha. After the order of deistraint a petition was filed by the
tenants, but the learned Munsif though impressed by the fact that the rent
claimed was rather high, alt that he was unable to alter his order. The petitioners
have therefore preferred this application against his order. In the first place
it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the section does not apply to
land held on bhaoli rent. But a similar contention was overruled in A.I.R. 1942
Pat. 193. Their second contention is that the order of distraint has been made
in violation of proviso 2 to the section which is to the following effect:
"An
application shall not be made under this section for the recovery of any sum in
excess of rent payable for the holding in the preceding agricultural year
unless that sum is payable under a written contract or in consequence of a
proceeding under this Act or an enactment hereby repealed."
It is stated in the petition that for the Inst 10 years the
landlords have not realised rent for the lands of the petitioners at more than
Rs. 12 per bigha and that this fact is supported by a number of rent receipts
and rent decrees. This contention seems to have greatly impressed the Munsif
and it may not be altogether without substance; but as was pointed out by the
learned advocate for the opposite party the actual cash amount paid by the
tenant in the preceding years is not a decisive factor in this case inasmuch
the holdings are held on batai rent. The actual cash amount recoverable in each
year will depend upon the prevailing prices and all that has to be seen s
whether the landlord is claiming more than his due share of the rent. It is
urged on behalf of the opposite party that the landlord claimed 9/20th share of
the crops in the preceding year and the same share was claimed in the year
1350. However that may be, in my opinion it is difficult to interfere with the
Order of the Munsif in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in
A. I.R. 1935 Pat. 154. It was held in that case that proceedings for distraint
should not be regarded as suits, that they are not judicial in the sense that
the Court proceeds in the absence of the tenants and the landlord comes and
gives his evidence ex parte and upon that all That the Court is required to do
is to carry The distraint out. It was also pointed out that the landlord abuses
S. 121, the remedy is expressly provided by s. 140.
It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that
one single application should not have been entertained for distraint in respect
of the produce of a number of different holdings. This view is supported by the
decision of the Calcutta High Court in 28 cal. 4 but this matter also cannot be
investigated by this Court in view of the decision to which I have referred.
Besides, this point does not appear to have been included in the objection
before the Munsif and I am unable to deal with it on its merits. The
application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order for costs.
Application dismissed.
R.K.
No comments:
Post a Comment