Madan Mohan Roy Karmokar vs Lokhi Kant Sen

This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order, dated the 5th December 1901, of the Munsif of Dacca exercising the powers of a Court of Small Causes should not he set aside. It appears that the Plaintiff, who is the applicant before us, sued the opposite party for rent, and that his suit was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff''s name had not been registered under the Land Registration Act. The Munsif said "the land and the house are held directly under the Collector and revenue is payable to him. The registration of the Plaintiff''s name is necessary."

The learned pleader for the applicant contends before us that the Munsif is in error. He says that the Plaintiff holds the plot of land and house in question directly under the Collector in a Bazar, in the heart of the town of Dacca; that the Collector holds this land as a khas mehal; and that what he, the applicant, pays to the Collector is not revenue, but rent, because the Collector is in possession of this khas mehal not as representing the Government as the paramount power but as a proprietor.

We think that this contention which is not controverted must prevail. It appears to us that the land which the applicant is in possession of is not an estate, and that he does not pay revenue to the Collector but rent, and therefore there is no necessity for him to have his name registered under the Land Registration Act. We therefore set aside the order of the Munsif and direct that that be do proceed to try the case on the merits. The costs of this rule will be costs in the cause. The hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur.