Shoma Mehta and Others vs Rajani Biswas

This is a rule obtained to show cause why the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge of Kustea, dated the 3rd April 1893, should not be set aside. The facts of the case are that the Plaintiff alleges himself to be the Defendant''s landlord. The Defendant, according to the Plaintiff, is burgadar, that is, he holds the Plaintiff''s land on a produce-rent. The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant has cut and carried of the whole of the crops, and has not given him (the Plaintiff) his share. He, therefore, sued the Defendant in the Small Cause Court for damages and obtained a decree. The Defendant''s pleas on the merits are immaterial. It is sufficient to say that he has now obtained this rule on the ground that the Plaintiff''s suit being for rent, the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as by Section 15, Act IX of 1887, a Small Cause Court cannot take cognizance of the cases specified in Sch. II of the Act and by Cl. (8) of Sch. II suits for the recovery of rent, except house-rent, are excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Courts. We think this contention is a good one. No doubt the Bengal Tenancy Act is silent as to the Court in which suits for the money equivalent of a produce-rent are to be instituted, and it may be contended that the equivalent, in money, of a produce-rent, does not, strictly speaking, come within the definition of rent contained in Sec. 3, Cl. 5 of the Tenancy Act. But the subject has been fully discussed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Tajuddin Khan v. Ram Parshad Bhagat ILR 1 All; 217 and we think for the reasons assigned by the majority of the learned Judges who decided that case, that the present suit must be held to be one for rent, and not for damages for breach of contract. Under Act X of 1859 such suits appear to have been instituted in the Revenue Courts and not in the Civil Courts as they would have been, if they had been regarded purely as suits for damages : See Luchman Parshad v. Kailash Mahton 11 W. R. 151 : 2 B. L. R. App. 27 and under Act VIII of 1869, (Bengal Council), it has been expressly held that such a suit as this is cognizable by the regular Civil Court and not by the Court of Small Causes. Mallik Amanat Ali v. Aklu Dasi 25 W. R. 140. In another case, too, Jamna Das v. Guni Meah 21 W. R. 124 it has been held by this Court that a suit to recover the value of goods, which ought to have been paid in kind, is a suit for rent.