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
5 paragraphs · 219 wordsEdgley, J.—In this case the Opposite Party was allowed to pre-empt a certain holding under the provisions of sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that pre-emption cannot be allowed under this section in this particular case as the holding in question is nishkar. The learned Advocate has referred us to the provisions of sec. 18 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which is in the following terms:-.
The provisions of sees. 23A to 38 (both inclusive) shall not apply to raiyats holding at fixed rates, even though such raiyats have a right of occupancy in the lands of their holdings." It was held in the case of Debendra Nath Majhi v. Sarat Chandra Nayek 44 C. W. N. 232 (1939). that there is no essential difference between a holding at a rate of rent fixed in perpetuity and an ordinary nishkar holding, because in the latter case the rent which has been fixed in perpetuity is nil. No adequate reason has been put before us which would justify us in dissenting from the above-cited decision.
It follows, therefore, that the Opposite Party cannot be allowed to preempt in this case and this Rule must be made absolute with costs-the hearing-fee being assessed at one gold mohur.
Biswas, J.
I agree.