ROXBURGH,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia modifying a decree of the Munsif of Ranaghat.
(2.) THE pltfs' case was that the defts were Utbandi tenants in respect of 9 bighas odd of land which had been let at a rate of Rs. 1/4/ -per bigha. The defts' case was first that they had acquired a right of occupancy, and secondly that the rental of the lands was Rs. 4/ -. The trial Ct found that the tenants had not acquired the right of occupancy; that the receipts produced by them to show the rental as being Rs. 4/ - were not genuine or not believable and finally that the rate of Rs. 1/4/ -per annum (sic) and consequently the rate claimed by the pltfs was not unfair or inequitable. It decreed the pltfs' suit at the rate claimed. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on the case of 'Nafar Chandra v. Jatindra Nath : AIR1929Cal614 held that the trial Ct should not have allowed evidence to be given of the prevailing rate of rent and that if the pltfs wanted the rent to be settled at a fair and equitable rate under section 24 of the Bengal Tenancy Act they must file a separate suit for the purpose. Therefore in the circumstances there could only be a decree at the agreed rate. It is easy to see that neither of the Cts have properly understood the provisions of Section 180 A or 180 B, Bengal Tenancy Act and that the lower appellate Ct has equally misunderstood the facts and the effect of the case relied on by it. Section 180 makes it quite clear that a, tenant holding tinder the system of Utbandi who has not acquired a right of occupancy is 'liable to pay such rent for his holding as may be agreed on between him and his landlord'. No question of fair and equitable rate arises.
(3.) SECTION 180 A provides the procedure for the landlord or the tenant to have a rate of rent determined under certain conditions and Section 180 B provides that on that event happening the tenant will have a right of occupancy.;