Ram Ranbijay Prasad Singh vs Ramgirhi Rai and others

Mohammad Noor, J.—These fourteen second appeals arise out of the same number of suits for enhancement of rents of occupancy holdings of the defendants on the ground of rise in prices of staple food-crops under S. 30, Ben. Ten. Act. The rent of all these holdings except perhaps of the one involved in second Appeal No. 1012 was settled under S. 105, Ben. Ten. Act in the year 1914. That rent came into operation from 1921 Fasli. These suits for enhancement of rent were instituted just after the completion of fifteen years since the settled rent came into force. The learned Munsif gave the plaintiff decrees for enhancement at the rate of four annas in the rupee. For the purpose of comparison tinder S. 32 (a), Ben. Ten. Act, he took the two decades just preceding the institution of the suits, that is to say, he compared the average prices of the decennial period just before the institution of the suits with the decennial period just preceding it. The suits having been instituted just after fifteen years since the rent was settled under S. 105, it is obvious that three years of the earlier decennium fell into the period which was prior to the settlement of rent. The learned District Judge on appeal has dismissed the plaintiff''s suits entirely. He held that the learned Munsif was not empowered to include for comparison any period prior to the settlement of rent under S. 105, Ben. Ten. Act. Presumably on his interpretation of sub-Cl. (c) of S. 32 he took into consideration only the period of the currency of rent and divided it into two periods and compared the one with the other; and having found that the rise was only six pies in the rupee, declined to give any enhancement at all. These appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court (Macpherson and Varma, JJ.); but considering the importance of the question involved, they suggested that the appeals be heard by a Special Bench and hence these cases have come before this Bench.

The only question of law which arises is whether the learned District Judge was right in taking into consideration two shorter periods of seven years each, i.e., only the period within the currency of the present rent; and whether he was right in holding that any period before the settlement of rent could not be taken into consideration. In order to decide this an examination of the provisions of law for enhancement of rent on the ground of rise in prices of the staple food-crops is required. S. 30, Ben. Ten. Act, mentions the various grounds on which the money rent of an occupancy holding can be enhanced. We are only concerned with sub-Cl. (b) of that section which authorises enhancement of rent on the ground that there has been a rise in the average local prices of staple food-crops during the currency of the present rent. It is obvious that the rise contemplated in this sub-clause is the rise over the prices which pre-vailed just at or about the time when the root was fixed. The principle is obvious. The rent represents a share of the produce of the land which from ancient times the cultivators of the soil were paying to the Government of the time being and which is now payable to the landlords. The money rent represents the price of the share of the produce which the landlord is entitled to receive from the raiyats. Any rise or fall in the price of staple food-crops necessarily disturbs this proportion of the share of the landlord and the raiyat. Therefore the framers of the Bengal Tenancy Act provided both for enhancement and reduction of rent on the ground of rise and fall of prices of the staple food-crops.

It is obvious from the principles on which these enhancements and reductions of rent are based that the rise contemplated in S. 30 (b) of the Act is the rise over the price which was prevailing at about the time when the current rent was fixed. It is assumed that the rent must have been fixed on the basis of the price prevailing. S. 32 provides the machinery for finding out what enhancement should be allowed in case there is a rise in the price of these staple food crops. Sub-Cl. (a) enjoins upon the Court to compare the average prices of the two decennial periods; one of them must be the period immediately preceding the institution of the suit, and the other may be any one which is practicable to take. But at the same time it must be equitable to take that decade into consideration for consideration. By practicable I understand the period for which figures are available or can be obtained without undue inconvenience and trouble. According to the terms of the section the Court can take any period which it thinks equitable to take the decennium may be one immediately preceding the decennium with which the comparison is to be made or any earlier decennial period. Ordinarily, however, it may be inequitable to go beyond the decennial period just preceding the time when the current rent was fixed, as in that case it will be unjust upon the raiyats to pay enhancement on the basis of rise of price compared with the prices which prevailed many years before the time when the rent was fixed which must have been taken into consideration at the time of the fixing of the current rent. In the present case the rent under S. 105, Ben. Ten. Act, must have been settled on the basis of rise in the decennium just preceding the settlement.

The learned Munsif has in these cases taken the earlier decennial period, the one just before that decennium which was immediately preceding the institution of the suit. There is nothing in this sub-clause which enjoins upon the Court not to go to a period before the date when the rent was last fixed or settled. Bather, in my opinion, it will be more equitable to compare the prices of the decennium just before the institution of the suit with the prices which prevailed in the decade just before the settlement of rent. The learned District Judge seems to have acted upon sub-Cl. (c) which in my opinion has no application. Shorter period can only be substituted for decades if it is in the opinion of the Court impracticable to take the latter into consideration. It is to be seen that comparison between two decennial periods is obligatory. Sub-Cl. (c) is an exception. When the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed in 1885, the legislature must have contemplated institution of suits immediately after the passing of the Act. No definite arrangements for the publication of the price lists were prevailing then as it is now. In Cl. (c) the legislature provided for cases where it will be impracticable to get the prices of two decades. ''Practicable'' in this clause again means the same thing as it does in Cl. (a). It is not practicable to compare the prices of two decades when evidence of prices is not available or evidence can only be procured with such an amount of inconvenience and trouble that the Court thinks under the circumstances to be unnecessary. But those considerations do not arise now when we have got a complete price list of the staple food-crops commencing from the year 1887. For all practical purposes Cl. (c) may now be taken to be obsolete. Therefore, the learned District Judge in my opinion was not right in confining himself to the periods of the currency of the present rent. The learned advocate for the respondents has drawn our attention to a passage in the speech of Sir Stuart Bayley given in the Imperial Legislative Council during the passage of the Bengal Tenancy Act. First of all, those speeches are of no value in interpreting the meaning of the statute. We must interpret the sections of an Act on the basis of the plain wordings of the sections themselves. The legislature must be taken to have meant what they have said and not what they contemplated to say but did not say. Here I feel no difficulty in interpreting the two clauses of S. 32; but the passage in the speech referred to by the learned advocate for the respondents does not support him. There Sir Stuart Bayley was comparing the position which was before the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act with the position which would be after the passing of the Act; and it was pointed out by him that the landlords would be in a better position in securing enhancement because it would no longer be necessary for them to prove the prices prevailing before the time when the rent was fixed, as the section authorises the Court to compare any two decennial periods even between the currency of the rent. The word used in the speech was "may" and not "must."

I think the judgment of the learned District Judge in dismissing the suits cannot stand. Now the question arises what should be done in this particular case? The learned Munsif has given an enhancement of four annas in the rupee. We cannot ignore the fact that since that judgment, there has been a considerable fall in the prices of staple food-crops on account of the general economic depression and as we are finally disposing of the cases now, we must see that no injustice is done to the raiyats on account of the enhancement being at a figure which may be unjust and inequitable. In my opinion four annas in the rupee in the circumstances which have arisen since the order of the learned Muusif will cause undue hardship on the tenants. The question arises whether the suits should, be remanded in order to determine what should be the fair enhancement in these cases or whether we should by some rough calculation fix a reasonable amount. I find that in a case which came up on appeal from the judgment of the same learned District Judge (Mr. Davies) and was from the neighbourhood of the village involved in the present suits, the learned District Judge himself gave enhancement at one anna in the rupee. That rate was upheld in this Court by my learned brother James (Second Appeal Nos. 928 to 953 of 1931). I see no reason why the same amount of enhancement should not be allowed in these cases. The suits in those cases were instituted at about the same time when the present suits wore instituted. Therefore, in my opinion, it will serve the ends of justice if instead of remanding the cases for an elaborate enquiry, enhancement be granted in all these cases at one anna in the rupee.

The only question for consideration which seems to have been specially raised is in regard to Second Appeal No. 1012 which corresponds to suit No. 737 of 1929 before the Munsif. It seems that in that case a specific defence was taken that the holding was at a fixed rate and not an occupancy holding. At one place the learned Munsif has said that the rent of all the holdings involved in these suits were settled under S. 105, Ben. Ten. Act. If so, no question of this holding being at a fixed rate did in fact arise. But later on the learned Munsif seems to have specifically considered the plea of the defendant of that suit about the fixity of the rent, and while dealing with this plea he does not seem to have considered that the rent was enhanced in the year 1914. Assuming, however, that the holding involved in that suit was not the subject-matter of settlement of rent in 1914, the plea of fixity of rent cannot be entertained for a moment. Apart from the reasons given by the learned Munsif for coming to a conclusion against the defendant, it seems that even in the evidence given by the defendant of that suit, he only claimed that rent was not enhanced for one hundred years. That is not enough now since Record-of-Rights has been prepared and the presumption for fixity of rent on account of there being no change for twenty years is no longer available to the defendant. Therefore I agree with the learned Munsif in holding that the defendant of that suit has failed to prove that the holding was at a fixed rent.

The appeals are partly allowed. The rent of all the holdings is enhanced at the rate of one anna in the rupee. The appellant will be entitled to half the costs of this Court as well as of the Court of appeal below. The order for costs made by the Munsif will stand.

James, J.

I agree.

Agarwala, J.

I agree.