- (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for rent instituted by the Appellant landlord against the Respondent tenant in respect of a tenure. The Appellant landlord is a limited company carrying on business at Hilly in West Dinajpur. The tenure is of land partly in West Dinajpur and partly in Pakistan. The suit was instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge of West Dinajpur. The learned Subordinate Judge held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he passed a decree for rent in favour of the Plaintiff Appellant. The suit was not contested on the merits. On appeal from that decree the learned Additional District Judge held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and on that finding reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.
(2.) Mr. Sen Gupta, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, stated that the Appellant was content to obtain a decree for money in respect of arrears of rent and that the Appellant did not press for a decree for rent in the technical sense under Chapters XIII and XIV of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
(3.) The jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit for arrears of rent of a tenure governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act has to be determined with reference to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.;