Back
1925 Supreme(Oudh) 70
HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Dalal, J.C.
Babu Manohar Lal Vakil - Appellant
Versus
Ram Ratan Pathak - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-1925
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J C - The plaintiff sued in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of Rs. 55 from a tenant Ram Ratan pathak and from his own late Karinda Jit Bahadur under the following circumstances:In August 1921 the plaintiff readmitted Ram Ratan Pathak to a tenancy on Ram Ratan promising to pay him Rs. 60 for costs of litigation and other expenses Ram Ratan admits this agreement. It was said that Ram Ratan paid Rs. 5 and Rs. 55 was due from him. The defence of Ram Ratan was that he had made payment to Jit Bahadur, who denied this. The Court of Small Causes definitely held that no such payment was made to Jit Bahadur; so this revision against Jit Bahadur does not lie under any circumstances and is liable to dismissal. As regards Ram Ratan it is argued that the recovery of nazrana was not illegal prior to the passing of the new amended Oudh Rent Act I of 1923. This argument misunderstands the addition of Clause (3) made to Section 17. The recovery of any sum in addition to rent could never be enforced through a Court before the passing of this Act just as much as it could not be subsequently. All that the Act laid down was that if any nazrana was recovered the sum recovered would be considered as a payment illegally enforced and could be obtained back. This does not mean that prior to the addition of Clause (3) to Section 17 a zamindar was entitled to recover through Court any sum in excess of the rent due. After the passing of the amendment even if the nazrana is recovered amicably, it will be presumed that the payment was illegally enforced and the landlord would be liable to the penalty provided by Section 17. The demand, however, was illegal before and is illegal at present and cannot be enforced through a Court of law.
2. I dismiss this application with costs.
