9911796707
TMI Blog1922 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1902, and, thereafter, the consolidated sum alone is shown as cash rent. Similar observations apply to each of the other cases. In these circumstances, the Revenue Officer who tried the suits in the Court of first instance held that Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act was not applicable. In his opinion the term 'rent' in that section did not include rent in kind. The result was that the suits were dismissed. On appeal, the Special Judge adopted the same construction of Section 50 and confirmed the decision of the Revenue Officer. In this Court, the tenants have urged that Section 50 has not been correctly interpreted by the Courts below. 2. Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides as follows: 50 (1). Where a tenure-holder or raiyat and his predecessors in-interest have held at a rent or rate of rent which has not been changed from the time of the Permanent Settlement, the rent or rate of rent shall not be liable to be increased except on the ground of an alteration in the area of the tenure or holding. (2). If it is proved in any suit or other proceeding under this Act that either a tenure-holder or raiyat and his predecessors-in-interest have held at a ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Wahed Ali 4 W.R. Act X Rul. 23 : 1 Ind. Jur. 20 was disapproved in Miterjeet Singh v. Toondun Singh (2) and in Ram Dyal Singh v. Luchmee Narain 14 W.R. 388 : 6 B.L.R. App. 25 Jackson J., when pressed with the decisions in Yacoob Hossain v. Wahed Ali 4 W.R. Act X Rul. 23 : 1 Ind. Jur. 20 and Thakoor Pershad v. Nowab Syud Mahomed Baker 8 W.R. 170 described in graphic terms the injustice of the rule favoured therein : I confess I would have considerable difficulty in assenting to the rulings in these cases; because, if the rulings are correct, the Legislature must have intended that raiyats who have held land upon one principle, that is to say, upon one fixed ratio of division of the produce of their land with the landlord, from the time of the Permanent Settlement, would be entitled to no protection whatever, but would after these 80 or 90 years be subject to a suit for enhancement or for commutation of their rent at such money rates as the landlord might be enabled to prove. I cannot believe that the Legislature could have intended any such injustice to raiyats in those parts of the country where the bhaolee system is prevalent as it is in many parts of Behar. In those parts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of a statutory provision. But, even if we assume for a moment that such reference is legitimate, it is plainly of no assistance in the present case. The omission of the clause left the Bill as it was, and that Bill, it cannot be overlooked, contain a comprehensive definition of the term 'rent'. Act X of 1859 did not contain a definition of the term 'rent', and this opened up, as is well known, various opportunities for controversies of a recondite character. The Legislature remedied this defect by the insertion of a definition of the term 'rent', in Section 3(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act--a definition which, as Sir Arthur Wilson observed in Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Jarao Kumari 33 C. 140 at p. 149 : 3 C.L.J. 7 : 10 C.W.N. 201 : 1 M.L.T. 8 : 33 I.A. 30 (P.C.) seems to express very clearly the meaning of the word 'rent' as it would be understood without any statutory definition. We need not speculate whether the members of the Select Committee fully realised the effect of this definition on the other provisions of the Bill they had then under consideration. But this much is clear that if they intended to alter the current of judicial opinion und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 721 : 7 Ind. Dec. 478 . The Judicial Committee cannot be deemed to have departed from the rule enunciated by them in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Premlal Mullick 22 I.A. 107 : 22 C. 788 : 6 Sar.P.C.J. 603 : 11 Ind. Dec. 522 merely because they did not again express their disapproval of a similar method of interpretation adopted by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of In the matter of Parbati Charan Chatterji 22 I.A. 193 : 17 A. 498 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 635 : 8 Ind. Dec. 644 . Lord Watson and Sir Richard Couch were members of the Board on each occasion, and there is no indication that the Judicial Committee had, in the course of a few months, altered their opinion on the subject. 9. As regards the principles which, as indicated by Lord Watson in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Premlal Mullick 22 I.A. 107 : 22 C. 788 : 6 Sar.P.C.J. 603 : 11 Ind. Dec. 522 (at page 118*), exclude the consideration of proceedings of the Legislature when the clauses of an Act of the British Legislature are under construction, it may be taken as well-settled that, although light may be thrown on the scope of a Statute by looking at what Parliament was doing contemporaneously an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur and Ors. (07.08.1922 - CALHC) : this Act of Parliament which could not legitimately assist him in construing it, and which I think unfortunately induced him to change the sound construction which he had twice before put upon it. Surely, the fifth section ought to receive the same construction, whether it was first introduced in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords, and whether it was introduced in the Committee or on the third reading, and whether it was or was not altered after it was introduced. Nor could the rejection of the clauses moved by Lord Beaumont on behalf of the Marquis of Donegall in any way affect the construction of the clauses which were allowed to form part of the Act when it became law. 10. In Attorney-General v. Sillem (1863) 2 H. C. 431 at pp. 321, 522 133 R.R. 731 : 33 L.J. Ex. 93 : 10 Jur. 262 9 L.T. 261 : 12 W.R. 257 : 159 E.R. 178 affirmed on appeal (1864) 10 H.L.C. 704 : 10 Jur. 446 : 10 L.T. 434 : 4 N.R. 29 : 13 W.R. 641 : 133 R.R. 382 : 11 B.R. 1200 Pollock, C.B., said : No Court can construe any Statute, and least of all a criminal Statute, by what Counsel are pleased to suggest were alterations made in Committee by a member of Parlia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Morgan (1858) 1 Plowden 199 at p. 204 : 95 E.R. 305 which received the approval of Turner, L.J., in Hawkins v. Gathercole (1855) 6 De G.M. G. 1 at p. 22 : 106 R.R. 1 : 24 L.J. Ch. 332 : 1 Jur. 481 : 3 W.R. 194 : 3 Eq. Rep. 348 : 43 E.R. 1129 of Lord Hals bury in Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (1898) A.C. 571 at p. 575 : 67 L.J. Ch. 628 : 79 L.T. 195 : 47 W.R. 152 : 15 R.P.C. 476 : 14 T.L.R. 527 and were quoted with approval by the Full Bench in Nilmani Kar v. Sati Prasad Garga Bahadur 61 Ind. Cas. 82 : 48 C. 556 : 32 C.L.J. 302 : 25 C.W.N. 230; they certainly do not admit of any such considerations. We hold accordingly that reference could not be made to the Report of the Select Committee, and that even if reference were permissible, the contention of the landlords would not be advanced thereby. 14. Our conclusion is that in Section 50, the terra 'rent' cannot be restricted to 'money-rent' and that it bears the meaning attributed to it in Section 3, Clause (5). The result is that these appeals are allowed and the suits decreed with costs in all the Courts. The hearing fee in this Court will be asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
