AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 182 wordsPrinsep and Beverley, JJ.—In this case the plaintiff states that she is one of three land-lords of the defendants, tenants, and she sues for the entire rent due from the tenants, making her co-sharers defendants also because they refused to join in the suit.
The Munsiff dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred u/s 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, but on appeal the District Judge has set aside that decision, on the ground that Section 188 does not apply.
In our opinion the view taken by the District Judge is correct. Section 188 applies only to anything which the landlord is, under the Bengal Tenancy Act, required or authorised to do. We can find nothing in the Act which authoresses a landlord to bring a suit against a tenant for recovery of arrears of rent. The terms of the section should, in our opinion, be strictly construed, for we cannot assume that the Legislature intended to alter the practice of our Courts as established by numerous decisions for years, past (1). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.