AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nasim Ali, J.—The point for determination in these two Rules is whether the purchaser of an occupancy holding is bound to deposit under the Sylhet Tenancy Act five times the market value of the annual produce rent which was being paid by his predecessor-in-interest,--the holding having been purchased by him in execution of a money decree. Sec. 32, cl. (1) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act lays down that five times the annual rent are to be deposited. This clearly contemplates the transfer of an occupancy holding the rent of which is payable in money and not in kind. This view finds support from the provisions of sec. 31, cls. (a) and (6) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act.
The Munsif was, therefore, right in refusing the Petitioners'' claim for landlord''s claim to recover from the Opposite party five times the market-value of the produce rent payable for the occupancy holding in question. These Rules are accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs.