AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Henderson, J.—This rule has been obtained by the plaintiff on ground No. 1 attached to the petition. The dispute relates to the amount of rent for which the opposite party is liable. The petitioner paid revenue at the rate of Rs. 3-14-6 per annum. The rent fixed by agreement was Rs. 19-8-6. There is no suggestion that this was illegal. For the years in suit, the petitioner obtained a remission amounting to 50 per cent. The case of the opposite parties was that they are automatically entitled to a similar reduction in rent. Section 44, Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, provides for maximum rents. As I have already noted, this section has not been infringed. Under S. 46, where a landlord obtains a remission of revenue, the tenant''s rent is liable to be altered fairly and equitably. The machinery provided is an application to the Revenue Courts. In addition to that the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer may interfere of their own motion even without an application.
No such procedure was adopted in the present case. Under S. 88 (1) (b), civil Courts are prohibited from exercising jurisdiction in connection with these matters. If the Revenue Officer were a mere mathematical calculating machine, I might have declined to interfere in revision: but I am not satisfied that this is the position. The rule is accordingly made absolute, the decree of the Courts below is modified and the petitioner will get a decree at the rate of Rs. 19-8-6 as claimed with costs. I make no order of costs in this Court.