The requirement to lay delegated legislation before the Legislature can be either mandatory or directory, depending on the specific statutory provisions and the intent of the Legislature. If the requirement is directory, non-compliance does not render the legislation invalid.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur, in Title Suit No. 21 of 1981 for declaration that plaintiff is not liable to pay any rent under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act for the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint and for a declaration that defendant No. 1 and its officers have no jurisdiction to fix, assess or realise rent from the plaintiff under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS case, in brief, is that under two registered lease deeds dated 20-11-1962 and 25-5-1964 executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sambalpur for the defendants and the Managing Director of the plaintiff-Company, the disputed lands had been given on lease to the plaintiff on an annual rent of Rs. 25/- per acre with a proviso that the rent is liable to be enhanced after expiry of 25 years not exceeding 50 per cent of the rent payable at the time of enhancement. Notwithstanding the aforesaid terms and conditions of the lease deed, the defendants and their officers served notice on the plaintiff to enhance the rent under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The plaintiff alleges that no such rent or land revenue can be assessed in respect of the lands under the Survey and Settlement Act as the plaintiff holds the lands under a special contract with the State of Orissa. The plaintiff also alleges that no rules having been framed under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act in accordance with law, the defendants have no jurisdiction to enhance the rent under law. When notice was served upon the plaintiff by the defendants and plaintiff came to know that defendants were bent upon enhancing the rent, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs already stated.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed their written statement taking the stand that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the lands which have been leased out to the plaintiff and under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, fair and equitable rent can be fixed under S. 19 of the Act as also under the Rules framed thereunder. According to the defendants the terms of the lease deed do not prohibit assessment of fair and equitable rent under S. 19 of the Act and sub-s- (4) of S. 19 fully empowers the Assistant Settlement Officer to fix fair and equitable rent in respect of lands held by a tenant under lease. It is also pleaded that defendants 2 and 3 have taken up the proceedings for fixation of fair and equitable rent. The defendants also contend that rules have been framed for assessment of rent for nonagricultural lands legally and defendant No. 2 has, therefore, jurisdiction to fix the rent. Defendants further contend that the suit is bad for non-compliance of S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the relief being available to the plaintiff under S. 22 (2) (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. It is also urged that the first rent roll not having been published, the suit is hit under S. 29 (2) and S. 42 (1) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, seven issues were framed and an issue No. 1 it has been held that the plaintiff was granted lease for Schedule 4 lands for 99 years on the condition that plaintiff pays annual rent of Rs. 25/- per acre and observes other conditions of the lease agreement and accordingly the lease is not a permanent lease, nor the rent fixed is permanent. On issues Nos. 2 and 3, the trial court has found that the plaintiff's contention that the plaintiff is not a tenant cannot be and under the provision of S. 19 of the Orissa Survey Settlement Act, fair and equitable rent can be assessed and the officers under the Orissa Survey Settlement Act can take up revision of rent of the lands. On issue No. 4, the trial Court has found that rent not having been fixed or published, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief. On issue No. 5, the trial C