PANDIT CHANDRIKA PRASADA Vs. BOMBAY BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara in a suit in which the respondents, the railway company, sought to recover certain land and buildings thereon in the possession of the appellant. Before the Subordinate Judge the railway company obtained an order for possession on certain terms which involved the payment to the appellant of a sum of Rs. 2,446-8-0. On appeal, that order was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the District Judge. A further appeal was taken to the Judicial Commissioner when, in its turn, the judgment of the District Judge was reversed and an order for possession was made on terms which involved payment to the appellant of a sum of 5,000 rupees.

(2.) THE circumstances of the case are unusual and are shortly these. In 1891 the railway company, who occupy certain Government land for the purposes of their railways, formulated and put into operation a scheme for housing certain of their employees on part of such land. THE idea seems to have been to form a village community consisting of the workmen in the company's, employment on the land in question. THE land was to be leased at ground rents by the railway company to the workmen, who were to build their own houses with money lent them by the company and recoverable by monthly instalments with interest. THEre was to be a committee, with the carriage and wagon superintendent of the railway company as chairman, and through, that committee the affairs of the community were to be managed. It seems to have been part of the scheme, at any rate as it was put in practice, that, when a workman ceased to be employed by the railway company, by reason of death or otherwise, possession of his holding had to be given up, but he or his representatives received a payment in respect of the building which he had put upon it.

(3.) THE first observation to be made is that, assuming the term comes to an end by reason of the death or departure from the service of the company of the tenant, there seems to be, on the language of Clause 3, nothing to justify the retention of the land by the tenant after the expiration of the term, on the ground that he has not actually been paid the value of the messuage. THEre is no doubt an obligation on the railway company to pay the value, of the messuage in accordance with the terms of that clause, but it does not seem to be a condition of his giving up possession of the land that he should be first paid,