Nazir Rai v. Kesko Pd. Singh Bahadur

Coutts, J.:— This matter comes before us on second appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Shahabad. The suit was instituted by the landlord for arrears of rent which had been settled under Sections 105 and 109(A) of the Bengal Tenancy Act in 1915. The defence set up by the defendants was that in the year 1901, the plaintiff had filed a road cess return wherein the jama was stated to be less than that settled in 1915; and they contended that under Section 20 of the Cess Act the landlord was not entitled to recover at a higher rate than that set out in the road cess return.

2. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance and this decree was affirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal on the ground that when the rent has been settled under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it did not matter what might have been recited in a previous road cess return and that the decision under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operated as res judicata.

3. The main point taken before us in appeal is the same as that which was taken throughout the case, namely, that Section 20 of the Cess Act is a bar to the plaintiff recovering more than the amount stated in the road cess return.

4. With this contention I am unable to agree. Section 20 of the Cess Act runs as follows:—

“Every holder of an estate or tenure in respect of which a return has been made as required by this Chapter shall be precluded from suing for or recovering rent at any higher rate than is mentioned in such return, for any land, holding or tenure included in such return, unless it be proved that the rent of such land or tenure has been lawfully enhanced subsequently to the lodging of such return.”

5. The present case comes under the last portion of Clause (b). By Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the rent was lawfully enhanced and this enhancement was subsequent to the lodging of the road cess return. Consequently there is no bar to the plaintiffs recovering at the higher rate on account of Section 20 of the Cess Act. By Section 107 of the Bengal Tenancy Act it is enacted that:—

“In all proceedings under Section 105(A) and Section 106, the Revenue Officer shall, subject to rules made by the Local Government under this Act, adopt the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the trial of suits: and his decision in every such proceeding shall have the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court in a suit between the parties and subject to the provisions of Section 108 and 109(A) shall be final.”

6. The rent settled, therefore, under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in this case is final and it is not open to the defendant to dispute it.

7. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.

8. Ross, J.:— I agree.

9. Appeal dismissed.