Back
1919 Supreme(SC) 34
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT CAVE, LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
PORT CANNING AND LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KATYANI DEBI - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : June 19. 1919.
Solicitors for appellants:Sanderson, Adkin, Lee & Eddis. Solicitors for respondent: T. L. Wilson & Co.
In reclamation leases, if a contract specifies a progressive increase in rent up to a maximum limit and is silent on further increases, the maximum rent reached is considered the fixed rent, not liable to further enhancement.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act - Sections 17 and 49 - Admissibility of unregistered documents - A document that serves as the lease under which possession is obtained is inadmissible in evidence if it is unregistered.
(B) Bengal Tenancy Act - Fixity of rent - Progressive rent scale - In reclamation leases, where a contract provides for rent to increase progressively up to a maximum amount and is silent on further enhancement, the inference is that the maximum rent reached is the fixed rent for the duration of the tenure.
(C) Conduct of parties - Acceptance of unvarying rent for a prolonged period and allowing the construction of permanent structures on the land supports the inference of fixity of rent.
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought to enhance the rent of a permanent, heritable, and transferable tenure created for land reclamation. The tenure's rent was structured to increase progressively over several years until reaching a maximum limit. The tenant had paid this maximum rent for seventeen years without any attempt at enhancement by the landlord.
Findings of Court:
The unregistered memorandum produced by the tenant was inadmissible as it was the basis for possession. However, the landlord's own settlement books indicated a progressive rent scale ending in a maximum amount. The conduct of the parties, including the acceptance of unvarying rent and the tenant's construction of permanent structures, supported the claim of fixed rent.
Issues: Whether an unregistered memorandum of lease is admissible in evidence and whether a progressive rent scale ending in a maximum amount implies that the rent is fixed and not liable to further enhancement under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where parties to a reclamation lease provide for a variation of rent up to a maximum and are silent regarding any possibility of variation beyond that amount, the intention is that the maximum rent reached shall be the fixed rate for the tenure.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- rent enhancement
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- admissibility of unregistered documents
-
evidence
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 9, 1914) reversing a decree of the District Judge of the 24 Parganas and restoring a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Alipur.
The suit was brought by the appellants claiming that the respondents tenure was liable to enhancement and praying that a fair rate of rent might be fixed. The respondent by her written statement pleaded that the tenure was maurasi mokurari, that is to say, a permanent hereditary holding at a fixed rent.
The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
1919. May 19. De Gruyther K. C. and Eddis for the appellants. No agreement can be implied that the maximum rent named was to be a fixed rent and not liable to enhancement under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The High Court wrongly assumed that the effect of Soorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ali (( 1875) 15 Beng. L. R. 125 n.) and Huro Prasad Roy v. Chundee Churn Boyragee (( 1883) I. L. R. 9 C. 505.) was that where a progressive rent was reserved it necessarily followed that the highest rent provided was fixed for the rest of the tenure. The agreement here did not use the expression "full rent" as in the case last mentioned. No definite rule can be laid down the question depends upon the terms of the documents and all the circumstances Baboo Dhunput Singh v.
06 Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 279 ( 1914- 1915) Port C anning and Land Improvement C o. Ltd v. Katyani Debi 107
Gooman Singh. (( 1867) 11 Moo. I. A. 433, 465.) [Reference was also made to the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, ss. 29 and 30.]
Sir William Garth K.C. for the respondent. Having regard to the terms of the documents and to the authorities the inference is that the maximum rent named was to be a fixed rent not liable to enhancement. The respondent paid that rent for 17 years without any attempt by the appellants to enhance it.
De Gruyther K.C. replied.
June 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
MR. AMEER ALI. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff company in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge of the 24 Parganas in Bengal for the enhancement of the rent of a tenure held under them by the respondent. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the rent of the tenure was not enhancible; his judgment was reversed on appeal by the District Judge. On second appeal the High Court of Calcutta came to the conclusion as an inference of law on the documentary evidence and the conduct of the parties, that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge was well founded, and it accordingly set aside the District Judges order and restored that of the first Court dismissing the suit.
The appellant company was formed in Bombay with the object of acquiring from Government grants of land in the Sunderbun Jungle Tract and reclaiming the same. The procedure that was adopted for the purpose was to carve out the land granted to them by Government into a number of subordinate tenures, to the holders of which was entrusted the actual work of reclamation and the settlement of ryots on land so reclaimed. It would appear from the record that the appellant company ordinarily gave some pecuniary assistance towards the reclamation, but in the instance in dispute they waived the payment by the tenure-holders of the usual premium or salami on account of the heavy cost of the work.
The appellant company, it is admitted, carried on their work in the Sunderbun Tract through an agent named Eduljee Cowasjee, who was in their service for a number of years before 1885, and continued in that capacity until 1893. The power of attorney given to him, which bears date October 20, 1876, is of the usual character. It gives him, naturally under the circumstances, very wide powers. In exercise of his authority he granted to a number of people collectively, called Teacher & Co., a tenure consisting of 1000 bighas of land, roughly 333 acres, which subsequently was split up into three lots, one of which, consisting of 193 bighas, is now held by the
