9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the tenancy (whether it was permanent, heritable, and transferable). 2. Validity of the notice to quit. 3. Applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. 4. Assessment of rent under Regulation V of 1812. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Tenancy: The plaintiff contended that the tenancy of defendant No. 1 was not permanent, heritable, and transferable. The trial court found that the tenancy was indeed permanent, heritable, and transferable, and this finding was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined various historical documents, including deeds of sale and mortgages, which indicated that the land had been transferred multiple times with the right to enjoy the property forever. The court noted that permanent structures had been built on the land, and the rent had been consistently paid since 1860. The cumulative effect of these facts led to the conclusion that the tenancy was permanent and heritable. 2. Validity of the Notice to Quit: The plaintiff served a notice to quit on the defendant, requiring him to vacate the premises by the last day of the month of Chaitra 1944 B.S. The defendant did not vacate, leading to the filing of the ejectment suit. However, since the tenancy was found to be permanent and heritable, the notice to quit was deemed ineffective in terminating the tenancy. 3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Judicata: The plaintiff argued that the decision in the 1859 suit precluded the defendant from contending that the tenancy was permanent and heritable. The court found that the issues in the 1859 suit were whether the landlords had served notice for the assessment of rent and whether rent could be assessed under Regulation V of 1812. The character of the tenancy was not directly or substantially in issue in that suit. Therefore, the plea of res judicata was not sustained. 4. Assessment of Rent under Regulation V of 1812: The court examined the historical context of rent assessment under Regulation V of 1812. In the 1859 suit, the Principal Sudder Amin had fixed the rent at Rs. 78 per annum. The court noted that the enhancement of rent in 1860 did not necessarily imply that the tenancy was not permanent. The principle that permanent tenancy does not imply both fixity of rent and fixity of occupation was upheld. The court referenced several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Shankarrao v. Sambhu Wallad and other relevant cases, to support this view. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the tenancy was permanent, heritable, and transferable. The notice to quit was ineffective, and the plea of res judicata was not applicable. The assessment of rent under Regulation V of 1812 did not negate the permanency of the tenancy. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
