Maharaja Bahadur Ram Ranbijay Prasad Singh vs Indardeo Sahai

Agarwala, J.—The appellant obtained a decree for arrears of rent for the years 1343 to 1345 at the rate of Rs. 182-13-6 and for arrears of cess at the rate of Rs. 18-4-9 and for interest on the arrears of rent at the statutory rate of 6� per cent. When the decree-holder applied for execution of this decree, the judgment-debtor pleaded that by reason of the proceedings under the Rent Reduction Act of 1938 the decree-holder was entitled neither to rent nor to cess at the decretal rate nor to interest on the arrears of rent. So far as the judgment-debtor''s objection with regard to the rate of rent is concerned, the decree-holder conceded this and there is now no dispute about it.

With regard to the judgment-debtor''s claim that he is entitled to a reduction of the rate of cess proportionate to the rate of reduction of the rent of the holding, the Courts below have held that the contention is unsound. With regard to the judgment-debtor''s contention that he is exonerated from payment of any interest on the arrears of rent, the first Court overruled the objection; the decision of the first Court has been reversed on appeal. Section 15(c) of the Act of 1938 provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, if in any suit or proceeding the claim of a landlord for an arrear of rent due in respect of a holding is reduced in accordance with c the provisions of Clause (a) or clause (b) of this section, the landlord shall not, in such suit or proceeding, be entitled to recover any interest "on the amount of the arrear as so reduced." The view taken by the first Court is that this provision merely means that the landlord is not entitled to interest on the difference between the original rent and the reduced rent. The appellate Court has held that the language of the section is so clear as to leave no doubt that the landlord is deprived altogether of the right to interest on the arrears of rent if the rent has been reduced under the provisions of the Act of 1938. I do not share the view of the appellate Court that the language of the section is so unequivocal as to lead to the conclusion at which he has arrived. If the Legislature had intended the result reached by the learned District Judge, it would have been sufficient to stop after the word ''interest'' and not to add the words "on the amount of the arrear as so reduced." In my opinion, the addition of these words indicates that it was not the intention of the Legislature to deprive the landlord of interest to which he is expressly declared to be entitled by Section 67, Tenancy Act. However inartistically the section has been drafted, its meaning appears to be tolerably clear, namely that the land lord is to get interest only on the basis of t the reduced rent. I must therefore allow the decree-holder''s appeal with regard to the claim for interest. He is entitled to cost throughout.

There is a cross-objection by the judgment-debtor with regard to the decisions relating to the claim for reduced cess. While-it is true that for the purposes of certains sections of the Bihar Tenancy Act ''rent'' includes any money Recoverable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it was rent and that, for the purposes of those sections, cess is rent, it does not follow that for the purposes of the Rent Reduction Act of 1938 rent includes cess. That Act does not purport to deal with cess at all and although by Section 2 it expressly incorporates the definitions of "agricultural year," "holding," "landlord" and "raiyat," given in the Tenancy Act it does not incorporate the definition of rent given in that Act. I see no reason why -this artificial definition of rent should be applied to the Act of 1938 without express words incorporating it in that Act. For these reasons I hold that, there is no merit in the cross-objection which is also dismissed. There will be no order for costs in the cross-objection.