Sudhi Ranjan Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The Appellants before us were the tenants in respect of one tenure which consisted of two touzis. One of such touzis was within the district of Rajshahi and the other within the district of Birbhuni. After the partition of Bengal the touzi in Rajshahi became a part of the Pakistan State. The touzi within the district of Birbhum became a part of the Indian Union. The present suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit instituted by the landlords for rent. A plea was taken by the tenants that the court at Birbhum had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit inasmuch as a part of the tenure was out side the Indian Union. The proper course, it was contended, to follow in such a case was to have an apportionment and the rent fixed for the portion of the tenure which was within the Indian Union and, thereafter, to file a suit for rent in respect of that portion. The learned Munsif allowed this objection and dismissed the suit on the ground that the court at Rampurhat had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against that there was an appeal and the District Judge reversed the decision of the Munsif and came to the conclusion that the court had jurisdiction. The learned District Judge in coming to the said conclusion relied on the amendment to Clause (1) of Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act introduced in the year 1928. I should have mentioned that the Appellants also relied on Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and contended that in view of the provisions of that section the suit was not maintainable. The learned Judge, however, came to the conclusion that in view of the said amendment to Section 144 the Rampurhat court had jurisdiction to try this suit.
(2.) Before dealing with the contentions of the Appellants raised in this appeal, it will be convenient to set out Clause (1) of Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The said clause reads as follows: "The cause of action in all suits between landlord and tenant as such shall, for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be deemed to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the civil court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought and no suit between landlord and tenant as such shall be instituted in any court other than a court within the local jurisdiction of which the lands of the tenure or holding, as the case may be, are wholly or partly situated."
(3.) The last portion of the said clause which begins with the words "no suit between landlord and tenant as such shall be "instituted" was inserted for the first time in the year 1928.;