Sasi Bhusan Hazra v. Aswini Kumar Samanta

We are of opinion that these appeals must succeed on the simple ground that it is impossible to get behind the statutory bar raised by sec. 109 to the rent fixed in proceedings under sec. 105, so far as those proceedings have been properly conducted. Even if we accept the contention raised before this Court in the case of Pandab Dowari Das v. Ananda Kisun Chakrabutty(1), there is nothing in that decision which militates against the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Geidt in this very Court reported in Shambhu Chandra Hazra v. Purna Chandra Pal(2). In that case the Chief Justice laid down very clearly that even if the Settlement Officer had gone wrong in deciding the question under sec. 106 which did not arise, his decision so far as it was a decision settling rent could not be interfered with, and on such a point no second appeal can lie. The Court followed this up by reversing the erroneous and incompetent decision of the Settlement Officer under sec. 105, or which purported to be under sec. 105, but it declined to interfere with the rent fixed and that rent which was then fixed is the very subject of this appeal, so that the learned Doctor who appeared for the Appellant says that it is immaterial to him whether the tenants choose to call themselves settled raiyats or raiyats at fixed rates or by any other name they choose. All he wants is his Rs. 113 and odd of rent and that he must have.

The learned Subordinate Judge has gone behind the decision under sec. 105, and so far as he has done so, his judgment and decree cannot be supported. We see that the Appellate order was that the entire decree of the Munsif was set aside and the suits were remanded to the Court below for decision on the merits along with the question of limitation. But it appears to us that the question of rent being finally settled no remand is necessary, inasmuch as we have already said that the parties are agreed that the Plaintiffs Respondents can call themselves, by any name they please. It does not seem therefore necessary to further waste the time of the Courts in arguing what their particular status is. It has already been held by this Court that their rent cannot be enhanced and therefore they are at liberty to call themselves anything they like.

There is no substantial question remaining to be decided and the appeals are therefore decided, the rent as fixed by the Settlement Officer is upheld and the Munsif's decision that the suits are incompetent by reason of sec. 109 is restored. The suits will therefore stand dismissed.

The Appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court. Both parties will bear their own costs in the lower Court.