AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maclean, C.J.—I think that the preliminary objection must be overruled, the amount claimed here consists of a certain sum for rent which is below Rs. 100 and for interest which brings the total amount over Rs. 100. See. 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not speak of the amount of rent claimed but of the amount claimed being under Rs. 100, and the amount claimed here for rent and interest is over Rs. 100, though the amount claimed for rent alone is under that amount. The preliminary objection must be overruled. Then as to the merits, the Respondent by a kabuliat, which is set out at pages 8 and 9 of the Paper-book, contracted with the Plaintiff to take a lease of the Plaintiff''s own share of certain property at a certain rent. What he takes a lease of is the Plaintiff''s share in the property. He does not pay the rent and the Plaintiff sues him for it. It is urged that he cannot alone sue but that ho must bring before the Court the other persons who were his co-sharers in the property. The answer to that appears to me to be that the Respondent contracted with the Plaintiff to pay him a certain rent for his (the Plaintiff''s) share of the property. That was the contract and 1 fail to see why the Plaintiff should not sue on that contract alone without bringing his co-sharers before the Court. I base my decision on the terms of the contract. The appeal must be allowed. The decree of the lower Appellate Court reversed and that of the first Court restored with costs in this Court and in the Court below.
Banerjee, J.
I concur.