Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.33 seconds)Section 10 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Prafulla Nath Tagore vs T.C. Tweedie, Receiver And Ors. on 1 July, 1921
16. The case in Profulla Nath v. Tweedie ('22) 9 A. I. R. 1922 Cal. 248 is the next case of importance to which reference may be necessary. Here the predecessor of the plaintiff had settled certain asli lands together with some lands which were later on found to be deara to the defendant at a fixed rent. The lease was in 1860 long before the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed. After resumption of the deara lands a temporary revenue settlement was made of the same and the plaintiff himself took settlement. Rent was settled in respect of the defendant's tenure under Section 104, Ben. Ten. Act, and the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the rent thus fixed by the revenue officer. It was held that the plaintiff was bound by the contract and that under Section 192, Ben. Ten. Act, the revenue officer was not authorised to fix a rent which affected the contract entered into before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Another important point was touched in the judgment of Chatterjea J., namely, whether this question of contractual rights could be raised after the settlement of rent became' final under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act. Opinion was expressed that under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act, only the entry relating to rent settled was final and not the entries relating to other matters which apparently were taken to include contractual rights of this description.
Sarada Prosad Ghose And Ors. vs Prafulla Chandra Ghosh And Ors. on 28 January, 1937
The last proposition was elaborately discussed and reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarada Prosad v. Prafulla Chandra . In this case, after rents were settled in respect of a tenancy under Section 104, Ben. Ten. Act, the tenant did not move the revenue officer under Section 104E or Section 104G or the civil Court under Section 104H. There were a patta and a kabuliyat between the landlord and the tenant prior to the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which there was a stipulation that subject to certain contingencies regarding increase of revenue by Government the rate of rent was to remain unaltered. It was held that in spite of the fact that the records became final under Section 104J the landlord was not entitled to recover rent beyond the stipulation in the patta and the kabuliyat. The learned Judges it appears, accepted the contention of the appellant that the recording of contractual rights under the kabuliyat was not an entry relating to rent to which alone irrebuttable presumption attached under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act, in other words, the kabuliyat rent might not be fair and equitable rent as contemplated in Part 2, Chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, and under such circumstances the revenue officer was to fix the rent that he considered proper and mention the kabuliyat rent as only a special incidence of the tenure which would be enforcible only in the special circumstances' if the grantor of the lease happened to accept revenue settlement for the particular period.
Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. vs Chandra Singha Dudhuria And Ors. on 29 July, 1938
17. The very same view was taken by Nasim Ali and Henderson JJ. in Midnapur Zamindary Co. v. Chandra Singh Dudhuria . This case arose out of two rent suits filed by the Dudhuria zamindars against the Midnapur Zamindary Co. for recovery of arrears of rent for two successive periods in respect of a putni which was created in favour of the Zamindary Company by the same document of 1866 to which the putni in the present suit owes its origin. These lands also being alluvial lands were formed into a separate non-permanently settled touzi and rents of all classes of tenants were settled under Part 2, Chap. 10, Ben. Ten. Act. The estate was temporarily settled with the Dudhuria Zamindars and they instituted the rent suits for recovery of rent as fixed by the settlement authorities. The defence was that as the lands were covered by the putni lease of 1866 which fixed a consolidated rental in respect of all lands included in it, the contract was binding between the parties and the defendant was not bound to pay any additional rent. It appears that in this case also the rent fixed by the revenue officer had become final under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act, and the defendant did not bring a suit challenging the entry under Section 104H of the Act. The learned Judges of this Court held---and the decision was quite in agreement with existing authorities--that only the entry relating to the amount of rent fixed by the revenue officer became final under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act. The question whether the tenant was liable to pay the rent thus fixed, by reason of a previous contract between him and a holder of the estate, was not a matter for determination by the revenue officer who has no power to touch contractual rights acquired before the Act. A suit under Section 104H, Ben. Ten. Act, would be necessary if the tenant had any grievance in respect of the amount of rent fixed by the revenue officer. But, if in spite of the rent fixed being fair and equitable, he asserted that the landlord had no right to realise that rent by reason of the terms of a previous contract, no suit under Section 104H, Ben. Ten. Act, was necessary and so far as that question was concerned, no conclusiveness attached to the entry of rent under Section 104J, Ben. Ten. Act. The result was that the rent suits were dismissed.
1