Rajendra Nath Manna and Others vs Jogjiban Hansda and Others

Harries, C.J.—The only question in this case is whether a lease under which a rent was payable annually is a lease for valuable consideration. The point arises u/s 37A(1)(c)(iii), Bengal Agricultural Debtors (Amendment) Act of 1942.

It is common ground that there was a lease in this case and the Courts have held that it was a bona fide one. Learned advocate for the opposite party has attempted to challenge that finding, but it appears to me that at this stage in revision I cannot possibly go into a question which is purely one of fact.

Learned advocate for the opposite party also urged that the view of the Courts below that a lease where no selami was paid is a lease without valuable consideration is the correct one. According to the Courts below, the rent payable every year could not be regarded as consideration for the lease.

In this country a lease can exist where no rent is payable and it may be that such a lease would be a lease not for valuable consideration. On the other hand, where a rent is payable under a lease it appears to me that the rent is consideration from the promisee to the landlord, the promisor. The contract is that the landlord would give the tenant the property for a certain period of time in return for a promise to pay a yearly rent. It appears to me that the agreement as to payment of rent is clearly consideration as that word is defined in Section 2(d), Contract Act.

In my judgment, the Courts below were wrong in holding that as no selami was paid (there could be no consideration. This lease was a lease for consideration and therefore the orders of the Courts below must be set aside and the order of the Board restored. The rule is therefore made absolute with costs. Let the counter-affidavit filed in Court today be kept on the record.