AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Roe, J.—The short point for decision in this case is whether a decree for sums due for rent daring a period for the later part of which the plaintiffs upon the record comprised the entire body of landlords and for the former part did not comprise the whole body of landlords, is a decree for rent within the meaning of Section 158B of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Upon the plain meaning of the section all that is required is that at the time of making of the decree the whole body of the landlords must be on the record. If the plaintiffs constitute the whole body of landlords, as existent at the date of the decree, the decree is a decree within the meaning of Section 158 B.
Our attention has been invited, as the attention of the lower Court was invited, to the case of Narain Uddin v. Srimanta Ghose 29 C. 219 at p. 222. In drawing attention to this case it seems to me that the respondents have overlooked the remarks of Mr. Justice Banerjee on page 222. It is clear from those remarks that he was of the opinion which I have expressed.
I would allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned District Judge and direct that the suit be dismissed with costs, the decree of the learned Munsif being restored. The respondents will pay the costs also of the District Court and of this Court.
Chapman, J.
I agree.