Back
1969 Supreme(Pat) 170
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.J.Bahadur and Kanhaiyaji JJ.
Keshab Kishore Narain Saraswati
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from Original Decree No. 262 of 1963 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 18, 1969
The court held that the plaintiff could claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, even though the contract between the plaintiff and the Public Works Department was void under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
RENT RECOVERY - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - SECTION 70 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - COMPENSATION - LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 110 AND 120 - INTEREST - SECTION 3 OF THE INTEREST ACT - RENT RECOVERY SUIT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 70 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT - LIMITATION PERIOD - INTEREST ON DECRETAL AMOUNT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed two suits for recovery of rent in respect of the same land for different periods. The Public Works Department of the State of Bihar took 1 bigha 2 kathas of land of the plaintiff for dumping coal and tar. The plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month. The State of Bihar and the Collector of Darbhanga, the defendants, denied the plaintiff's claim of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month and contended that the rent of the land was to be paid in accordance with the fair rent to be fixed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga. They also pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation and that there was no written contract as required by Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contract was void under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India, but the plaintiff could claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The court also held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to the case and not Article 110, and that the claim in Money Suit No. 66 of 1960 was not barred by limitation from the 1st February, 1953. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest prior to the date of the decree, but would get interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the decree to the date of payment of the decretal amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the contract between the plaintiff and the Public Works Department was void under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the plaintiff could claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act? 3. Which Article of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to the case? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest prior to the date of the decree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contract was void under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India, as it was not expressed to be made by the Governor of the State and was not executed on behalf of the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize. 2. The court held that the plaintiff could claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, as the Public Works Department had enjoyed the benefit of the plaintiff's land without paying rent. 3. The court held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to the case, as the claim under Section 70 of the Contract Act was not based on contract but on quasi-contract. 4. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest prior to the date of the decree, as there was no express or implied contract for payment of interest and the claim was being allowed on damages.
Final Decision: The court allowed both the appeals with costs and decreed the suits, as indicated above.
Kanhaiyaji, J.
1. These two appeals of the plaintiff arise out of one judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, and were heard together as common questions of law and fact were involved in both the appeals, and, therefore, this judgment will govern both of them.
2. The plaintiff filed two suits for recovery of rent in respect of the same land for different periods. It is the common case of the parties that, in all, 1 bigha 2 kathas of land of the plaintiff as per details given at the foot of the plaints was taken by the Public Works Department of the State of Bihar for dumping coal and tar. 11 Kathas of land was taken with effect from the 1st April, 1957, whereas 10 kathas of land from the 1st July 1950 and 1 katha of land from the 1st May, 1947. As regards the last item of 1 katha, it is also the common ground that rent to the plaintiff was paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month from the 1st May, 1947 to the 31st July. 1951, In First Appeal No. 262 of 1963 arising out of Money suit No. 66 of 1960, rent in question was claimed from the 1st August 1951 to the 31st March, 1959, in respect of 1 katha of land and from the 1st July, 1950, in respect of 10 kathas of land and likewise from the 1st April, 1957 in respect of 11 kathas of land. In First Appeal No. 297 of 1965 arising out of Money Suit No. 31 of 1962, rent was claimed in respect of the lands from the 1st April, 1959, to the 31st March, 1962, at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the land in question was taken by the Public Works Department at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month, and, in spite of demand, no payment was made for the period in question. So he was obliged to file the two suits for the recovery of the arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of one per cent per month thereon and other incidental expenses like cost of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, and the Collector of Darbhanga are the defendants in each suit. The two defendants filed separate written statements, but their defence was almost identical. The occupation of the land for keeping the stock of coal and tar was not denied. However, the plaintiffs claim of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month was denied. As regards the aforesaid one katha of land, it was stated on their behalf that Rs. 10 per month was the rent not only for the land but also for a house standing thereon. As regards the other items of 10 kathas and 11 kathas, it was contended that the Department had not taken those lands at the rate of Rs. 10 per month, but the rent of the land was to be paid in accordance with the fair rent to be fixed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga. Another defence put forward on their behalf was that the claim of the plaintiff was bad inasmuch as there was no written contract as required by Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India. In Money Suit No- 66 of 1960, bar of limitation was also pleaded.
5. In this connection. It is better to mention here that the averment in the plaint that the rent of the land was fairly assessed by the District Magistrate in 1958 at the rate of Rs. 10 per katha per month was not denied, but it was contended by the defendants that subsequently in pursuance of a letter dated the 10th June, 1959, from the Chief Engineer to the District Magistrate, the rent was revised and fixed at Rs. 3/-per katha per month at which rate the defendants expressed their readiness to pay the rent for the period in question. The defendants admitted that no payment had been made to the plaintiff for the period in question.
6. The material findings of the learned Subordinate Judge are that the fair rent of the lands in question for different periods involved in the two suits was Rupees 10/- per Katha, that the suits were hit by the provisions of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution and that Article 110
