Srikishun Singh and Others vs Ram Janam Rai and Others

These three appeals by the landlords have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment passed by the learned Munsif involving a consideration of a common question of law. The appellants sued for recovery of arrears of rent for 1346 to four annas kist of 1350 Fasli. In the plaint they set out how the three holdings in the three suits came to be constituted as the result of a splitting up of an original single holding. The tenant defendants by a registered deed of partition bearing date 21-8-1928, effected a partition of the original holding and> handed over the partition deed to the landlords-all of whom agreed to the splitting up of the holding. It was alleged that each of the tenants was liable to pay rent annually at the rate of Rs. 11-8-6. It was also stated in the plaint; that in the year 1939 the deceased father of one of the defendants made an application for reduction of rent of the original holding ignoring the splitting up into three holdings, and the rent reduction officer reduced the rental of that holding, from Rs. 37 odd to Rs. 19-11 9, and this he had no jurisdiction to do. The plaintiffs therefore-asked that a decree be passed against the defendants in the three suits at one-third of the original rental.

The plea of the defendants in each suit was that there was no splitting up of the holding, that the partition deed was not acted upon, and that the rent reduction proceedings were with jurisdiction and could not be ignored.

The trial Court came to these conclusions: (1) that the original holding had been split up* into three holdings, (a) that the application to the rent reduction officer was made by a single-tenant with regard to the original holding which was no longer existing, (3) that all the landlords and all the defendants were not parties to the rent reduction proceedings, and (A) that the rent reduction officer was never asked to reduce the rental of the three holdings. On these findings he came to the conclusion that the rent reduction officer had total lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly he decreed the suits against the defendants as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Against this decision, three appeals were preferred to the learned Subordinate Judge who disposed them of by a single judgment. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, the tenants did not challenge the finding of the learned Munsif that the original holding had been split up into three holdings. The learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the view of the learned Munsif as to the rent reduction proceedings being ultra vires. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly threw the onus on the plaintiffs to establish that all the plaintiffs were not made parties in the rent reduction proceedings and that no notice of these proceedings was served on them. He then examined the evidence in the case and drew an inference against the plaintiffs from the non-examination of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and from the non-production of the relevant papers of the rent reduction proceedings. He came to this conclusion:

I, therefore, hold that all the three defendants of the three suits were the applicants in the rent reduction proceeding and all the three plaintiffs-landlords were made parties in that proceeding and notices were served on all of them.... But all the three tenants defendants having filed the application for reduction of rent and all the plaintiffs landlords having been made parties in the rent reduction proceeding and the reduction of rent having been made in the presence of the plaintiffs-landlords the application for reduction of the original rent will be taken to be an application for reduction of rents of the three holdings created by the partition. I do not think that there is any bar u/s 112A, B.T. Act to file one application for reduction of rent of more than one holding and that if such reduction of rent of more than one holding be made in one proceeding, it will be without jurisdiction. All the parties having been present in the rent reduction proceeding, I hold that the rent-reduction order shall be deemed to have been passed for reduction of rent of the three new holdings and the order of reduction is valid and binding on the plaintiffs-landlords.

Accordingly, he allowed the appeal of the tenants and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against each of the defendants for Rs. 6-9-0 besides cess, that is to say, one-third of Rs. 19-11-0 which was the reduced amount fixed by the rent schedule, Ex. B. Hence the three appeals to this Court.

Mr. B.N. Mitter on behalf of the appellants argued that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in coming to a finding that all the tenants and all the landlords were parties in the rent reduction proceedings. He points "out that the tenants have not produced the original application nor have they produced any other relevant papers to show that all these necessary-parties were represented before the rent reduction officer or were parties in the rent reduction proceedings. The argument is unsound because the onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that all the necessary persons were not made parties in the rent reduction 1 proceedings. It is to be observed that the plaintiffs-landlords themselves went up in appeal to the superior revenue Courts, but neither the grounds of appeal nor the appellate order has been produced in these proceedings before us. Moreover, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is a finding of fact and is based upon an appreciation of evidence and that finding cannot be successfully challenged in second appeal. It must, therefore, be held that all the landlords and all the tenants were parties to the rent reduction proceedings.

What then is the objection to the order of the rent reduction officer? The only objection is that the order purports to deal with a lump rental arid not with three rentals to which the original rental and the reduced rental was distributed. The position is analogous to what was considered by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Prafulla Nath v. Satya Bhusan AIR 1929 P.C. 171 In that case Lord Atkin in delivering the judgment of the Board made these observations at p. 246:

There can be no doubt that the CPC permits a plaintiff to join in one suit claims against a defendant in respect of more than one tenure. It appears to have been the view of the High Court following other decisions in India to the like effect that such a suit can never result in a decree or decrees to sell the tenures separately so as to give the purchaser power to annul the incumbrances on each separate tenure. Their Lordships are inclined to think that this goes too far. If the original suit can be brought against a holder in respect of all his separate holdings, there appears to be nothing in the CPC or in the Bengal Tenancy Act to prevent the consequent decrees and orders from being so moulded as to enable their provisions to apply distributively to the separate holdings in respect of which the suit is brought. It would be a misfortune to find a system of procedure so rigid as to lead to an illogical and inconvenient result: and their Lordships are not prepared to hold that this defect exists. But obviously if the original suit is brought in respect of separate tenures the plaintiff must see that the subsequent process takes such a form that the tenures are in fact sold separately, so that each may be redeemed separately by the incumbrancers of such separate part pursuant to Section 170 etc, etc.

These observations support the reasonable conclusions adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge when he observes that on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances in this case he must hold that the application for reduction of the original rent will be taken to be an application for reduction of rent of the three holdings and the order of the rent reduction officer shall be deemed to have been passed for reduction of rent of the three new holdings. It was open to the plaintiffs to have produced the original application for reduction of rent to show to us that the rent reduction officer was not asked to reduce the rent of the three separate holdings, but that they have not done.

For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The appeals fail and must be dismissed but without costs. The plaintiffs, however, are entitled to interest at the statutory rate of 6 per cent, on the amount decreed from the date of the decision of the trial Court till today and thereafter at six per cent. per annum till realization.