High CourtsDivision Bench

Muhammad Abdul Hasnat vs Rambilas Singh and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 29 May 1929 · Citation: AIR 1930 Patna 162

HON’BLE JUDGES
Das, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 — Section 30(b)
Ask AI about this case

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

4 paragraphs · 437 words

Das, J.—These appeals arise out of suits for enhancement of rent u/s 30(b), Bengal Ten. Act. The suits were contested on two grounds, first, on the ground that the rents were enhanced within a period of 15 years and cannot again be enhanced and, secondly, on the ground that the lands have deteriorated and cannot bear enhanced rent. Both the Courts below have found against the tenants on the defence actually taken by them, but while the Court of first instance enhanced the rent by three annas in the rupee with effect from F. 1333, the learned District Judge has dismissed all these suits.

2.

I have already Maid that the learned District Judge disbelieved the specific case set out by the defendants in their written statements, but the view of the learned District Judge would appear to be this: Section 30(b), Ben. Ten, Act, so he argues, is based on an assumption of the Manchester School of Economists that a rise in the price of agricultural produce necessarily benefits the tenant. He then shows that although this presumption may be true where the tenant is a large capitalist farmer as in England, it is not true generally of the Indian raiyat; and he concludes his judgment by saying that Section 30(b) of the Act has to be applied with great caution.

3.

In the circumstances of the present case he thought that the landlord was not entitled to any enhancement at all. It may be that Section 30(b), Ben. Ten. Act is an erroneous piece of legislation, but unfortunately, so far as we are concerned, we have to administer the law as we find it. It is certainly no part of our duty to repeal any portion of the statutory law of India. In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is erroneous. On his own findings that the specific defence put forward on behalf of the defendants was unsupported by any evidence, he should have allowed the landlord such enhancement as he was entitled to under the law. I am of opinion that the rent should be enhanced in each case by two annas six pies in the rupee with effect from 1333 F.

4.

I would allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the Court below and vary the decree of the learned Munsif by allowing enhancement at the rate of two annas six pies in the rupee with effect from 1333 F. There will be no costs in this Court, but the plaintiffs will be entitled to their costs on the enhancement in the Court below.