- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 16-8-60. The brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of appellant purchased the land in dispute on Maha Badi 8, Samvat 1944 i. e. on 6-1-1888 and since then they are paying no land revenue of the said land to the State. The plaintiff Badri Parsad let out the land through a registered kabuliat to Sohanlal and Debisahai defendant-respondents on 24-5-49 @rs. 400/- per annum for a period of five years with the stipulation that the rent shall be payable half-yearly. When the rent was not paid by the defendant-respondents the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar on 25-5-55 for Rs. 680/- at follows: Rent of Rabi Smt. 2010 Rs. 200 Rent of Kharif Smt. 2011 Rs. 200 Rent of Rabi Smt. 2011 Rs. 200 Interest @ Rs. 2/- per cent per month. . . Rs. 80 Rs. 680
(2.) THE suit was decreed by the trial court on 13-11-57 for Rs. 600/- as rent plus Rs. 20/-as interest. THE defendant-respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the decree of the trial court dated 13-11-57 which was rejected on 12-7-58. THE defendant-respondents then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was decided on 25-7-59 and the case was remanded to the Trial Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar with the direction to frame an issue whether sec. 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act were applicable to the case and to try and decide the case afresh in accordance with law. THE trial court tried the case afresh and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of rent at agreed rate at rent and disallowed the interest vide his judgment and decree dated 13-6-60. In cross-appeals by both the parties, the Additional Commissioner, II, Jaipur modified the decree to Rs. 241/-5/-, vide his order dated 16-8-60. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner II, Jaipur dated 16-8-60 the appellant has come up in appeal before the Board or Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellant raised 3 contentions before us. Firstly, that the plaintiff appellant's ancestors in Smt. 1944 purchased this holding in question from the State Government and therefore they acquired the rights of Ala Malik from the State. Secondly, in view of this acquisition of Ala Malik right there was no liability on the part of the plaintiff appellant to pay any revenue or rent to the Government. The case, therefore, could not be covered under the Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954. The third and the last contention was that the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 governing the payment of rent by a tenant to the landholder cannot possibly apply to this case as the arrears of rent for which the suit was filed was prior to the coming in to force of the Rajasthan Act, 1955. The counsel for the respondents' reply was that the plaintiff appellant was admittedly a landholder and the defendant respondents were the tenants. The provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954 would apply to this case as the village was settled and assessed rent for 'chahi' in the village is fixed. Exbt. D-l has fixed the 'chahi' and 'barani' rates of the land revenue in the village in the last settlement in 1933-34. We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. Taking the third and the last contention of the counsel for the appellant first we are inclined to agree with him that the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 regulating the rent payable by the tenant to the landholder would not apply to this case. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff appellant had sued for an arrear of rent for the Smt. year 2010 and 2011 i. e. for the period 53-54 and 1954-55. Smt. 2011 ended in June, 1955. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force on 15-10-55 after the arrears fell due and as such would not apply to this case. The counsel for the respondents also does not disagree with this contention. Therefore, we uphold this contention of the counsel for the applicant. Taking the first contention now, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff appellant's ancestors purchased this land from the State and in the Jamabandi of Smt. 2002 khatauni No. 55 of the village Nangli of this land had been recorded as 'jarkharid', and no land revenue or rent has been charged from the appellant since then. The counsel therefore urged that he became the 'alamalik' of the land and was not liable to the payment of any land revenue or rent to the State. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff appellant did not pay any land revenue on the holding in question purchased by his ancestors. It is, therefore, not clear whether this holding was purchased as an agricultural land subject to the payment of land revenue or rent or it was purchased as an abadi land for non-agricultural purposes. In the latter case the question of payment of land revenue would not arise and no suit for recovery of arrear of rent for abadi land would be maintainable in the Revenue Courts and the plaintiff appellants has to seek his remedy in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The counsel for the appellant was unable to clarify this position and yet maintained that he was an 'ala Malik' of the land. This argument of the counsel for the appellant to fix the status of the purchaser of land from the State cannot be supported on the ground of absurdity. No subject of a State can possibly acquire the sovereign rights of the State land. There cannot be a state within the state. The plaintiff appellant could at the most be a biswedar or a Jamidar or a muafidar. He would nevertheless be obliged to pay either a tribute or land revenue to the Government for the land held by him. It is possible that by a contract of sale entered into by the State Government and the purchaser the land be totally remitted, but in the absence of such a contract for remission of rent, the liability of the purchaser of agricultural land to pay rent remains. The provisions of sec. 93 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 clearly lays down that every tenant is liable to pay rent and that all land for whatever purpose it is applied is liable to pay land revenue or rent to the State Government except where the exemption has been granted by special grant or by any other provision of law in force. These provisions of law although subsequent to the transaction between the parties are nevertheless in consonance with the previous rules of the Alwar State to which area this case belongs. Therefore, in the absence of any exemption from payment of rent or revenue the appellant was bound to pay rent or revenue to the Government and if for some reasons or other the Tehsildar of the area was not able to recover the rent, it does not absolve the appellant from the payment of rent or revenue for good. In such circumstances the status of the appellant can be no better than that of the landholder and as such he was liable even as a tenant in chief to pay rent to the Government. Land-holder as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act clearly means a person in any part of the State, by whatever name designated to whom rent is, or, but for a contract, express or implied, would be, payable and shall include - (i) an estate-holder. (ii) a grantee at a favourable rate of rent. (iii) in the case of a sub-lease, the tenant-in-chief who has sublet or his mortgagee. (iv) for the purposes of Chapter IX and an Ijaradar or Thekadar; (v) generally every person who is a superior holder, in relation to persons holding directly from or under him. This clearly fixes the status of the plaintiff appellant that he was a land-holder, and it cannot be said that he was an Ala Malik and it would be absured to say that he purchased the rights of the State and was thus wholly exempt from the payment of land revenue and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the appellant that he was not liable to pay rent and acquired the 'alamalik' right is completely absurd and without any foundation. It leads us now to the determination of a question whether the appellant's case for recovery of arrears of rent was governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954. On this question it was urged by the counsel for the appellant that sec. 3 of the Act would not apply to this case as no land revenue was assessed on the holding and sec. 4 would not apply because the Tehsil-dar did not follow the procedure of fixing cash rent. In support the counsel cited Narain vs. Bhagirath Singh reported in RLW 1959 p. 127 (Revenue Supplement ). The counsel for the respondents' reply was that the Rent Control Act would apply as the Chahi rent for the village had already been fixed. We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides in this case and perused the ruling cited by the counsel for the applicant. Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954 reads as follows - Sec. 3 Maximum recoverable as Cash rent - (i) Notwithstanding any custom, usage or practice! to the contrary or anything contained in any law enactment, rule, decree, order, agreement or instrument, no land-holder shall recover or be deemed entitled to recover as cash-rent for any holding in an area to which this Act for the time being applies an amount exceeding twice the land revenue assessed on such holding or the cash-rent fixed under sec. 4 of this Act The above Act as the preamble recites, clearly provides for the maximum rent recoverable by land-holders from the tenants in order that excessive rent may not be recoverable from them. The Act clearly applies to Alwar State and came into force on the 16th May, 1952 although it was enacted in 1954. Sec. 3 clearly prohibits a land-holder from recovering cash-rent, an amount exceeding twice the land revenue or the cash-rent fixed under sec. 4 of this Act. It is amply clear from the record that though land revenue or rent has been fixed on this land, the plaintiff-appellant as stated above was not a biswedar or a muafidar as he purchased the land and therefore the question of fixing land revenue does not arise on this land. The plaintiff-appellant as land-holder was thus clearly a tenant-in-chief and rent on his holding should have been fixed by the Tehsildar keeping in view the provision contained in sec. 4 of the aforesaid Act. There is no doubt that the Tehsildar did not take any action as required under sec. 4 to fix the cash rent where they were not fixed on the basis of the assessed rent rates in the adjoining settled villages for remaining soil classes. It is on record that Chahi rent of the area has been fixed and there was no reason why this Chahi rent already fixed for the village should not have been adopted by the Tehsildar for recovering the rent from the plaintiff appellant as land-holder. There is no bar to the fixing of this rent now although the Rajasthan Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954 has been repealed, but prior to its repeal this duty to fix the rent arose and this can be discharged even now by the Tehsildar or this can be done under sec. 107 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. But as the counsel for the respondent says that the Chahi rent, has already been fixed in the area it can be taken as the basis for determination of the rent of the holding of the appellant. The appellant no doubt has cited RLW 1959, p. 127 (Narain vs. Bhagirathsingh) in which it was held by the previous Division Bench that sec. 4 of the Act in which a similar question arose between the tenant and the land-holder the latter granted half his jagir village on Ijara under an agreement for the payment of a sum of Rs. 1375/- per annum, "it was held by the learned Members there that sec. 4 of the Act deals with conversion of kind rent into cash and therefore would not apply to that case and sec. 3 of the Rent Control Act would not apply, because no land revenue was settled. That case is distinguishable from the present one on the ground that in that case the land holder who sought to recover the arrears of land revenue as a Jagirdar and no land revenue was fixed to be payable by the jagirdar to the State and therefore the question of application of first part of sec. 3 of the Agricultural Rent Control Act did not apply. In this case the present land-holder is merely a tenant-in-chief and not even a biswedar and he was liable to pay rent to the Government although this rent was not fixed, it was capable of being fixed. In the case of Narain vs. Bhagirath Singh, the learned Members ran into error of law and were carried away by the heading of sec. 4 of the Agricultural Rent Control Act, 1954 which read as follows - "sec. 4. Conversion of kind-rents into Cash-rents. " A careful reading of the above section would show that the question of conversion of kind rent into cash rent was nowhere laid down in the aforesaid section. The Tehsildar there was charged with the duty of fixing cash-rents on the basis of assessed revenue rates in the adjoining settled villages even though by implication kind rent may exist sec. 3 of the Agricultural Rent Control Act clearly lays down that cash-rent has to be fixed under sec. 4 of the Act and once that is done the landholder was only entitled to recover from his tenant an amount not exceeding twice such cash-rent. In that case also it was possible for the learned Members to have considered the implication of S. 4 read with S. 3 and if that was done the judgment would have been different. However, the ruling cited by the counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the present case. Here the cash-rent payable by the appellant to the Government is capable of being fixed and it is that cash rent which the appellant can charge. It has been rightly held therefore by the learned Additional Commissioner that the appellant was only entitled to the payment of arrears of rent according to the three times chahi rent already fixed for the village and the question therefore of fresh determination of the cash-rent in the holding does not arise. We are, therefore, not persuaded to interfere in the order already passed by the Additional Commissioner and the appeal of the appellant is accordingly rejected. . ;