LAWS(PVC)-1947-8-63

HARBANS PANDEY Vs. SOBHAN SINGH

Decided On August 04, 1947
HARBANS PANDEY Appellant
V/S
SOBHAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Gaya modifying that of the Munsif of Aurangabad in a suit for two declarations; (1) that the restoration of the holding under the Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act, 1938, was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and (2) that a reduction of the rent of the holding after restoration was similarly ultra vires and null and void.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The defendant, Sobhan Singh, had an occupancy holding which originally paid rent in kind. As a result of commutation proceedings, it was converted into a cash-paying holding in 1921 with effect from 1328 Fasli. The landlords obtained judgment against the tenant for arrears of rent, and, in execution of that decree, put the holding to sale, and purchased it themselves on 26-10-1933. On 2-7-1934, they obtained delivery of possession through Court. On the enactment of the Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act (9 [IX] of 1938), the tenant started proceedings for restoration of his holding. The landlords, who are the plaintiffs in this suit, contested the tenant's right to restoration, chiefly on the grounds that they were petty landlords within the meaning of the Act, and that they had been in direct possession of the holding by cultivating the same. Bat the Revenue Officer decided against the landlords, and, by his order dated 26-11-1939, he directed that the holding be restored to the tenant.

(3.) The landlords went up in appeal or revision up to the highest revenue Court; but their contentions were negatived by these Courts, with the result that the tenant was put in possession of the holding in December 1939. Subsequently, the tenant made another application for reduction of rent, and the rent of the holding was reduced by the Rent Reduction Officer on 23-9-1940. The landlords preferred an appeal to the Collector, who has been vested with final powers in such proceedings under the. Act. The Collector, by his orders dated 27-8-1941, allowed the appeal, and the effective portion of his judgment is as follows: I think it was not open to the learned R.R.O. to apply Clause (d) to this case. It is not the action (option?) of the tenant or the R.R.O., to apply any of the clauses. Clause (d) is inapplicable in this case, and Clause (b) is applicable. But the petition is time barred for being filed under Clause (b). I fully see that the tenant could not have applied within the time limit for obvious reasons; but to circumvent that circumstance, however unfortunate it might be, it is not possible to apply Clause (d). Appeal allowed. Cancel Rent Schedule. The tenant's application in revision to the Commissioner being unsuccessful, he moved the Beard of Revenue, and the latter, by its order dated 26-8-1942, allowed the revisional application set aside the appellate order of the Collector and restored the original order of the Rent Reduction Officer. Hence this suit by the landlords to get rid of the effect of the orders passed by the revenue Courts as aforesaid, restoring the holding and reducing its rent.