SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(Cal) 616

SUHRAWARDY, CHOTZNER
Honble Raja Reshee Case Law – Appellant
Versus
Ambika Dassi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. In these appeals the question raised is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of rent u/s 304 (b), Bengal Tenancy Act. He applied under Section. 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent and claimed enhancement of the rent of the holdings to which these appeals relate on the ground of rise in the price of staple food crops. The Revenue Officer, as well as the Special Judge on appeal, have dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The Revenue Officer records his reason these words "Serials 2, 14 and 28 consist of bastus, dobas, nalas, patits, &c., growing no agricultural crop. So in these cases no enhancement u/s 30 (&) is allowed at all." The learned Special Judge on appeal observes, it appears, that all the above serials except 48 are homesteads, ditches, and nalas, patit, growing no agricultural crop. I think that he lower Court was right in disallowing tenhancement u/s 30(b). It has been decided in many cases in this Court that the fact that a certain holding consists of homesteads, or patit lands or lands which yield no crop is no ground for disallowing enhancement of the rent of the tenancy. The authority for this view is to be found in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top