Khub Lal Singh vs Daroga Singh and Others

Das, J.—The judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below cannot

stand.

It is admitted that the landlord dispossessed the tenants from one of the plots comprised within the tenancy. That being so the tenants were entitled to withhold the rent. The learned District Judge was under the impression that as the landlord proposed that the rent should be reduced it must be taken that he acted in a very straightforward manner and that, therefore, he was entitled to recover rent.

I cannot agree with this view. There is not much straight forwardness in forcibly dispossessing a tenant from a portion of the land within the tenancy and then proposing to the tenant to reduce the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.

I would allow the appeal, sat aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and restore the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout.

It is obvious that so long as the landlord does not put the tenants in possession of the land from which the latter had bean dispossessed the landlord will not be entitled be recover any rent from the tenants.