F. Karim v. Indian Tea Licensing Committee — 1939 DIGILAW 159 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - This is an appeal u/s 7(2) of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, against the order of the Indian Tea Licensing Committee, dated October 15, 1938, u/s 14 of the Act, whereby the Committee had determined the crop basis of the Jhemai Tea Estate to be 147 lbs. 2. The Appellant is Mr. F. Karim, who describes himself as a tea planter, land-holder and proprietor of the Jhemai Tea Estate in the district of Sylhet. His case is to the effect that, in 1927, he obtained a settlement of a thousand acres of land in the district of Sylhet from the Prithimpassa Estate and that he entered into possession of this land in March, 1927. The rent payable by him to his landlords amounted to Rs. 1,250 per annum. He maintains that he cleared 125 acres of this land in 1927 and thereafter planted with tea an area of 65 acres in 1928 and a further of 60 acres in 1929. Thereafter, on November 21, 1930, he made over possession of the thousand acres of land, mentioned hereafter as the Jhemai Tea Estate, to the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, under an agreement of that date, by which this Company had an option to purchase the estate from the Appellant within three years of the date of the agreement. While the estate was in the possession of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, steps were taken to restrict the export and cultivation of tea in British India and, in pursuance of this scheme, certain proposals were made to tea estates in India, which are contained in a document known as the London Referendum which was circulated to tea estates on January 14, 1933. At the same time forms were sent to the estates concerned, upon which they were asked to signify whether or not they assented to the proposals for the regulation of tea exports detailed in the London Referendum. The majority of the tea estates in India agreed to accept these proposals and, on May 24, 1933, the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, signified their agreement to these proposals and claimed an export allowance on the basis of 44,000 lbs., on a total acreage of 125 acres of young clearings. 3. The majority of the tea estates in India agreed to accept these proposals and, on May 24, 1933, the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, signified their agreement to these proposals and claimed an export allowance on the basis of 44,000 lbs., on a total acreage of 125 acres of young clearings. 3. The 'Appellant's case is that the Licensing Committee accepted the figures submitted by the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, after necessary investigation, and by a letter, dated June 2, 1933, the Committee informed the Company that the Jhemai Tea Estate had been allotted an export quota for 1933-34 of 28,600 lbs. net. Thereafter, the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933 was passed and it received the assent of the Governor-General on September 21, 1933. The Appellant maintains that, as the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, .failed to perform their part of the agreement, dated November 21, 1930, he re-entered into possession of the Jhemai Tea Estate on January 1, 1935. According to the statement of the case which was filed in this Court on April 22, 1939, the Appellant's case appears to have been that, as far as the year 1934 is concerned, he had no knowledge of the affairs of the Jhemai Tea Estate, with the exception of the facts mentioned in para 23 of the statement to the effect that, on January 25, 1934, the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, had filed an application for an export quota in respect of 65 acres which had been planted in 1928 and 60 acres which had been similarly planted in 1929. He maintains that, after inspecting the records of the Jhemai Tea Estate, which had been sent to the High Court by the Indian Tea Licensing Committee, he subsequently learnt that the quota right of the estate had been illegally stopped on the report of one Bipul Chandra Gupta, a member of the Licensing Committee, and also on account of some letters addressed to the Committee by certain persons who described themselves as members and directors of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited. He also added in paras. 32 and 33 of the statement that it would appear from the inspection of the said records that Mr. He also added in paras. 32 and 33 of the statement that it would appear from the inspection of the said records that Mr. T. A. Allen submitted a report of inspection of the Jhemai Tea Estate on November 14, 1934, wherein it was stated that there was about a quarter of an acre of land under tea, which is said to have been planted before March, 1933, but there was no visible sign of a tea estate and no documentary evidence could be produced at that time. The Appellant contended that the said report was false and that, as a matter of fact, he had come to learn that there was no inspection whatsoever. He maintained that the Committee arbitrarily refused to renew the quota rights in respect of the Jhemai Tea Estate on the basis of Mr. Allen's report, and that the Committee's letter, dated November 21, 1934, whereby the Ratna Valley Tea Company's application for an export quota for the year 1934-35 was rejected, was never received by the said Company. The Appellant went on to state that in 1935 he duly submitted his application for an export quota for the year 1935-36 in respect of 75 acres of land, but, owing to his ignorance of the intricacies of the Tea Control Act of 1933, he did not enter in his application form particulars with regard to the area which had been abandoned since 1928. This application was refused by the Committee on April 3, 1935. On March 28, 1936, the Appellant states, he submitted to the Licensing Committee a survey map and a report prepared by their nominated surveyors, which shows that 71-67 acres of land had been planted with tea in the Jhemai Tea Estate in 1928-29. He maintains that the correctness of this survey was confirmed except as to the age of the plants by the inspection report of Messrs. Forbes and Smith, dated June 15, 1937, in which it was further pointed out that the estate included an area of 23-33 acres of tea, which had been abandoned. In spite of the report submitted by Messrs. Forbes and Smith, the Committee again rejected the Appellant's application for an export quota for the year 1937-38, and merely allotted to him a quota for that year on the basis of an area of a quarter of an acre under tea. In spite of the report submitted by Messrs. Forbes and Smith, the Committee again rejected the Appellant's application for an export quota for the year 1937-38, and merely allotted to him a quota for that year on the basis of an area of a quarter of an acre under tea. The Appellant again applied for an export quota for the year 1938-39 on the basis of 75 acres under tea and, in support of his claim, submitted the inspection report of Mr. J. Crawford, the Manager of the Kachpijalai Estate in the district of Sylhet. After further correspondence on the subject he was informed on October 15, 1938, that the crop basis of his estate had been calculated to be 147 lbs. and it is against this order that this appeal is directed. 4. The Appellant contends that the action of the Indian Tea Licensing Committee in fixing his crop basis at this figure is illegal on various grounds and that he is entitled to an export quota fixed on the basis of young tea areas to the extent of 125 acres. 5. Most of the material allegations made by the Appellant are denied in the Committee's counter-affidavit which was filed in this Court on April 27, 1939. The Committee do not admit that the Appellant came into possession of any land under the Prithimpassa Estate in 1927 as alleged by the Appellant whose allegations with regard to the plantation of the estate are described as being untrue. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Committee's affidavit contain admissions to the effect that the area which was planted with tea in or about 1928 and 1929 did not exceed a quarter of an acre and that a nursery was planted on the estate in 1926 or 1927. They do not, however, admit that these initial plantations were made by the Appellant. They further deny the fact that any investigation as alleged by the Appellant was made in connection with the allotment of an export quota of 28,600 lbs. to the estate, but they assert that, on June 2, 1933, a provisional export quota of 28,600 lbs. was allotted to the Jhemai Tea Estate for the year 1933-34 without investigation. The Committee then refer to certain events which occurred in 1934 and to the inspection of the Jhemai Tea Estate made by Messrs. to the estate, but they assert that, on June 2, 1933, a provisional export quota of 28,600 lbs. was allotted to the Jhemai Tea Estate for the year 1933-34 without investigation. The Committee then refer to certain events which occurred in 1934 and to the inspection of the Jhemai Tea Estate made by Messrs. Brown and Allen in November of that year, when it was ascertained that the only area planted with tea prior to March, 1933, was one small plot measuring roughly a quarter of an acre. In these circumstances, the Committee by their letter, dated November 21, 1934, rejected the application for an export quota for the year 1934-35. They denied that the report submitted by Messrs. Brown and Allen was false as alleged by the Appellant. They state that the inspection was in fact made and that the Appellant was present at the inspection. They further maintain that the map and report upon which the Appellant relies in para 37 of his statement were false and were not prepared by surveyors. They do not admit the correctness of. any of the statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Crawford. They allege that the area found after investigation by the Committee appointed under the Indian Tea Control Act, 1933, viz., one-fourth of an acre, must be taken as conclusive, and they assert that the highest figure fixed for any year after investigation was the crop basis figure for 1937-38, viz., 100 lbs. only. 6. The following issues were framed by this Court on May 4, 1939: (1) Was the crop basis of 44,000 lbs., which was allotted to the Jhemai Tea Estate on June 2, 1933, fixed after due investigation by the Committee and, if so, should this figure have been accepted by the Committee as the initial basic figure under Clause (1) of the schedule to the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, in calculating the crop basis for the Jhemai Tea Estate for 1938-39? (2) After accepting 44,000 lbs. as the crop basis of the estate on June 2, 1933, in respect of an alleged acreage of 125 acres, had the Committee any power to hold any further investigation for the purpose of recalculating the crop basis of the estate under the Act of 1933 in respect of a reduced acreage or at all? (3) If the figure 44,000 lbs. (3) If the figure 44,000 lbs. was not fixed after due investigation by the Committee, what was the highest crop basis figure fixed for the estate after such investigation while the Act of 1933 was in force? (4) If the highest crop basis figure for the Jhemai Tea Estate was incorrectly ascertained by the Committee while the Act of 1933 was in force, what would have been the correct highest crop basis figure ? Is the Appellant and/or the Committee now entitled to adopt the correct figure as the initial basic figure under Clause (1) of the schedule to the Act of 1938 or are they bound to adopt the highest crop basis figure actually found by the Committee after investigation, even although this figure may be incorrect? (5) Was the Jhemai Tea Estate granted its due allowance for "young clearings" in respect of its crop basis Allotment while the Act of 1933 was in force? (6) Has the allowance for "young areas" under Clause (2) of the schedule to the Act of 1938 been properly calculated ? Is the Committee entitled to deduct any "young clearing" allowances in the manner prescribed in para. 4(6) of the Indian Tea Control Rules, 1938. (7) To what relief, if any, is the Appellant entitled ? 7. As this is an appeal against an administrative order passed by the Indian Tea Licensing Committee it has been necessary to allow both parties to adduce evidence before this Court. As pointed out by me in the case of Suprakash Das v. Indian Tea Licensing Committee ILR (1939) 2 Cal. 277, the intention of the legislature in granting a right of appeal to this Court u/s 7(2) of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, seems to have been to bring the contending parties before this Court as ordinary litigants with a view to the judicial determination on legal evidence of the disputes which may have arisen between them. 8. The decision on the issues which have been framed in this case depends upon the conclusions at which it will be necessary to arrive with regard to the facts of the case and also upon the interpretation of certain provisions of the Indian Tea Control Acts of 1933 and 1938. These matters will now be discussed. 9. 8. The decision on the issues which have been framed in this case depends upon the conclusions at which it will be necessary to arrive with regard to the facts of the case and also upon the interpretation of certain provisions of the Indian Tea Control Acts of 1933 and 1938. These matters will now be discussed. 9. The main contention of the Appellant is to the effect that the crop basis for the Jhemai Tea Estate for the season 1938-39 was wrongly calculated. 10. The calculation of the crop basis for this season must be made in accordance with the provisions of the schedule to the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, which reads as follows: Crop basis mentioned in Section 14 (2) of the Act will include the following: (1) The Crop Basis of a tea estate for each financial year shall on and from April 1, 1938, be the crop basis which was ascertained for such tea estate for the financial year 1937-38, or the highest figure fixed for any year after investigation by the Committee, whichever be higher, in accordance with the rules under the Indian Tea Control Act, 1933, with the addition of allowances for special hardship determined under Rules 4 and 5 framed u/s 23 of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1933. (2) Allowances for Young areas, i.e., tea planted from January 1, 1926, onwards to be added automatically in accordance with scales that may be fixed for different localities in the prescribed manner. (3) Allowances for low producing areas as may be determined in the prescribed manner. 11. No question arises in this case with regard to the interpretation of Clause (3) of the schedule, and, as regards Clause (1), we are not concerned with the addition of any hardship allowances determined under rr. 4 and 5 of the rules framed u/s 23 of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1933. 12. With reference to Clause (1) of the schedule, the learned Advocate-General contends that the initial figure to be taken by the Committee as a basis for their calculations must be either the crop basis figure which was ascertained for the Jhemai Tea Estate for the financial year 1937-38 (that is, a figure of 100 lbs. 12. With reference to Clause (1) of the schedule, the learned Advocate-General contends that the initial figure to be taken by the Committee as a basis for their calculations must be either the crop basis figure which was ascertained for the Jhemai Tea Estate for the financial year 1937-38 (that is, a figure of 100 lbs. based on an area of one quarter of an acre under tea) or any higher crop basis figure which may have been fixed for any previous year after investigation by the Committee, whichever be higher. He contends, however, that the only crop basis figure which was actually fixed after investigation by the Committee was the figure which was fixed for the year 1937-38. 13. As regards Clause (2) of the schedule, the learned Advocate-General faintly contended that, if the question of the extent of the young areas concerned and the years of their plantation had once been decided by the Committee in calculating the crop basis of the estate in accordance with the rules under the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933, and no steps had been taken by the owner of the estate to have the matter reconsidered by the Government of India u/s 7 of the Act of 1933, such owner would thereafter be debarred from reagitating the matter with a-'view to obtaining a young area allowance under Clause (2) of the schedule. He admitted, however, that, for the purposes of this case, the Appellant might be allowed to reopen this question and that he would be entitled to a young area allowance in accordance with the provisions of Clause (2) of the schedule, provided he was able to discharge the onus which lay upon him to show that certain young areas measuring approximately 125 acres had been planted in the manner alleged by him in 1928-29. 14. The view which the learned advocate for the Appellant asked me to accept with regard to the interpretation of Clause (1) of the schedule was to the effect that the only figure which should be taken as the initial basic figure for the crop basis calculation was the figure relating to the maximum production of tea, if any, in any one of the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, which admittedly would be nil in the case with which we are now dealing. He contended, however, that under Clause (2) of the schedule his client would be entitled to a young area allowance at the rate of 591 lbs. an acre under Rule 4(b) of the Indian Tea Control Rules, 1938, such allowance being made not only in respect of the young areas proved by him to have been planted in 1928-29 and which were still under tea cultivation at the time when his client submitted his application for a tea quota for the year 1938-39, but also in respect of any young areas which might have been planted by Mr. Karim in 1928-29 and which had been subsequently abandoned. 15. In my view, the contention of the learned Advocate-General as regards the initial basic figure of the crop basis calculation under Clause (1) of the schedule is correct. This was the view which I adopted as the basis of my decision in the case of the Sundarpur Tea Estate v. Indian Tea Licensing Committee ILR (1939) 2 Cal. 210, and to the principles which I laid down in my judgment in that case I still adhere. It follows, therefore, that for the purposes of Clause (1) of the schedule the initial basic figure must be the figure of 100 lbs. which was admittedly accepted by the Committee as the crop basis figure for the year 1937-38, unless it can be said that the higher crop basis figure, namely, 44,000 lbs., upon which the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, was granted an export quota on June 2, 1933, was a figure at which the Committee arrived after investigation. The question whether or not any investigation by the Committee took place in fixing the crop basis of the Jhemai Tea Estate at 44,000 lbs. in 1933 will be discussed hereafter. 16. As regards Clause (2) of the schedule, the owner of a tea estate is entitled to the addition of an allowance for young areas, subject to the deductions prescribed in Rule 4(b) of the Indian Tea Control Rules, 1938, which appear to have been prescribed mainly for the purpose of ensuring that a tea estate is not credited twice over under Clause (1) or Clause (2) of the schedule with any allowance to which an estate may be entitled. The onus will, however, lie upon the owner of the tea estate concerned to show that the young areas had actually been planted by him within the material period mentioned in Clause (2) of the schedule, due regard being had to the case made out by him in his pleadings, for, as pointed out by Lord Westbury in the case of Eshenchunder Singh v. Shamachurn Bhutto (1886) 11 M.I.A. 7, 20. It is absolutely necessary "that the "determinations in a cause should be founded upon a "case either to be found in the pleadings or involved "in or consistent with the case thereby made." It is, of course, possible that in a suitable case the owner of a tea garden might be precluded from reopening a question of this nature, but, as far as this particular case is concerned, in view of the admission made by the learned Advocate-General, the Appellant will be entitled to an allowance for young areas under Clause (2) of the schedule, if he has been able to discharge the onus which lies on him to show that, as alleged by him in his pleadings, he planted 125 acres of young tea in the Jhemai Tea Estate in 1928-29. 17. It may be noted that, having regard to the manner in which the learned advocate for the Appellant placed his case at the time of argument, it was not necessary for him to press the contention raised in his pleadings to the effect that Rule 4(b) of the Indian Tea Control Rules of 1938 was ultra vires. 18. The next material point which arises for consideration is whether the crop basis figure upon which the Jhemai Tea Estate was granted an export quota in 1933, namely, 44,000 lbs., was fixed after investigation by the Committee. On this point the Appellant's case, according to his evidence, is to the effect that the books of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, were produced before Mr. Pye, the Joint Controller, some time between February and May, 1933. As Mr. Pye required further details from the proprietor regarding the Jhemai Tea Estate, the latter visited Mr. Pye in the first part of May 1933. He states that Mr. Pye asked him when the garden was started, when the land was cleared, how much land was under tea and for other information of that nature. The Appellant states that Mr. Pye required further details from the proprietor regarding the Jhemai Tea Estate, the latter visited Mr. Pye in the first part of May 1933. He states that Mr. Pye asked him when the garden was started, when the land was cleared, how much land was under tea and for other information of that nature. The Appellant states that Mr. Pye noted down the figures which he supplied. He also states that, on the occasion of this visit to Mr. Pye, he took with him a note book in which he had made certain entries from the Ratna Valley Tea Company's records on or about the 5th or 6th of February and on some subsequent dates. These entries are to the effect that the garden was started in 1927 when about 130 acres of land were cleared. There is also an entry relating to the plantation of 125 acres of land. There is further entry, dated May 24, 1933, relating-to the crop basis of 44,000 lbs. and another relating to the quota allotted to the Jhemai Tea Estate, namely, 28,600 lbs. 19. Mr. Pye denies the allegation to the effect that the books of the Ratna Valley Tea Estate were ever inspected by him and he also states that Mr. Karim's account of the alleged interview with him in May 1933 is untrue. His evidence is to the effect that the first occasion on which he saw Mr. Karim at all was on July 9, 1934 when Mr. Karim called at his office and left, his card, Mr. Pye pinned this card to a letter, dated June 13, 1934, which he had addressed to the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, in which he had requested them to have the quota J application form for 1934-35 signed in conformity with the foot-note at p. 4 of the application form and had also asked them to produce authentic documentary proof in support of their application within thirty days of the receipt of the letter. Mr. Karim interviewed Mr. Pye on behalf of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, with regard to this matter and he was allowed further time until July 31, 1934, to submit a survey report. This was the first occasion upon which Mr. Pye interviewed the Appellant. 20. As regards the applications for export quotas, which were received in 1933, Mr. Mr. Karim interviewed Mr. Pye on behalf of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, with regard to this matter and he was allowed further time until July 31, 1934, to submit a survey report. This was the first occasion upon which Mr. Pye interviewed the Appellant. 20. As regards the applications for export quotas, which were received in 1933, Mr. Pye has testified to the effect that most of these applications were accepted without being questioned, because the Committee at that time were too busy to undertake any detailed investigation. As regards the application made on behalf of the Jhemai Tea Estate, he is quite clear in his recollection that the figures supplied by this estate in 1933 were not questioned. His evidence is further to the effect that, although the practice of having gardens inspected in certain cases was adopted in 1934, the Licensing Committee had not adopted that practice in 1933, partly because they were too busy receiving applications for quotas and partly because the general procedure to be observed in connection with these matters had not been sufficiently considered. I am quite satisfied from the testimony of Mr. Pye that no investigation with regard to the crop basis of the Jhemai Tea Estate was made in 1933 and that Mr. Karim's testimony with regard to this matter cannot be believed. 21. The Appellants evidence to the effect that he made certain entries regarding the Jhemai Tea Estate in 1933 in the note book, Ex. D, and that he took this note book with him when he visited Mr. Pye in May of that' year is palpably false. He states in his evidence that he kept this note book for three or four years from 1931 or 1932 and that the entries which he made therein were put down in chronological order. Further, he testified to the effect that the first of the entries relating to the Jhemai Tea Estate was made by him on the 6th or 7th of February, 1933. He was then confronted with certain entries on the first page of the note book relating to certain legal business before Cunliffe J. Admittedly, Cunliffe J. did not join this Court until June, 1934. He was then confronted with certain entries on the first page of the note book relating to certain legal business before Cunliffe J. Admittedly, Cunliffe J. did not join this Court until June, 1934. The Appellant endeavoured to explain these entries by saying that they had actually been made by one of his friends who had used the note book, but that, in spite of this fact, the note book was returned to the Appellant. It is quite clear from the internal evidence afforded by the note book itself that the entries contained therein relating to the Jhemai Tea Estate must have been made by the Appellant for' the purposes of this case and could not possibly have been made in 1933 as alleged by him. 22. I must hold on the evidence as I find it that no investigation by the Committee within the meaning of Clause (1) of the schedule to the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, was made with regard to the crop basis of the Jhemai Tea Estate in 1933. But, even if any such investigation had been held by the Committee in that year, it would have been of no avail to the Appellant. The investigation for the purpose of Clause (1) of the schedule must clearly be an investigation by the Committee constituted under the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933. The Act of 1933 did not receive the assent of the Governor-General until. September 21, 1933, and did not actually come into operation until November 15 of that year. The Committee which was functioning in May, 1933, was a Licensing Committee appointed under the provisions of the Tea Licensing Resolution, published under Notification No. 30. dated May 20, 1933. It was declared by Section 22 of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1933, that the acts of the Committee constituted under the Tea Licensing Resolution should only be deemed to have been done under the Act to the 'limited extent mentioned in the section. It, therefore, follows that an investigation, if any, made by the Committee constituted under the Tea Licensing Resolution cannot be regarded as an investigation made by the Committee appointed under the provisions of the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933. 23. It, therefore, follows that an investigation, if any, made by the Committee constituted under the Tea Licensing Resolution cannot be regarded as an investigation made by the Committee appointed under the provisions of the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933. 23. The next point to be considered is whether the Appellant has discharged the onus which lies upon him to show that he planted 125 acres of tea in the Jhemai Tea Estate in 1928-29. * * * * 24. On August 24, 1934, a letter was addressed to the Indian Tea Licensing Committee by certain persons who described themselves as members and directors of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, to the effect that an incorrect map had been submitted to the Committee, which was more or less imaginary as could be proved if it were tested on the spot. Immediately thereafter we find that the Committee took steps to arrange for the inspection of the estate as the accuracy of the application for a tea export quota had been questioned. The correspondence, read in the light of Mr. Allen's evidence, indicates that the Appellant did his best to delay the inspection as long as possible and he also endeavoured to induce the Committee to agree to have his garden inspected by Mr. Hossain, the Manager of the Muraichera Garden, who, according to the evidence, was one of the shareholders of the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited. Finally, arrangements were made for the inspection of the garden by Messrs. Allen and Brown and their report is dated November 14, 1934. 25. In this connection, it has been argued by the learned advocate for the Appellant that no authority had been conferred upon the Committee by the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933 to enable them to have gardens inspected. He, therefore, asks me to hold that the Committee had no option but to accept without question the figures submitted by the tea estates concerned as a basis for calculating the export quotas to which they were entitled. This argument I am not prepared to accept. 26. It is true that under the Tea Licensing Resolution, dated May 20, 1933, the Committee were not expressly authorized either to inspect or to call for returns, but they were nevertheless entrusted with certain statutory duties in connection with the allotment and determination of export quotas. This argument I am not prepared to accept. 26. It is true that under the Tea Licensing Resolution, dated May 20, 1933, the Committee were not expressly authorized either to inspect or to call for returns, but they were nevertheless entrusted with certain statutory duties in connection with the allotment and determination of export quotas. To have allotted an export quota which the Committee knew or had reason to believe to be based upon incorrect figures, would, in my view, have amounted to a violation of the statutory functions of the Committee. If they had considered it necessary to call for further returns it would clearly have been their duty to do so and it would also have been open to them to test the accuracy of such returns by such legal means as might have been available to them, for example, by inspection of the tea estate with the consent of the owner. The difficulty of the Committee under the Tea Licensing Resolution lay mainly in the fact that they had no power to compel owners of tea estates to submit accurate returns nor to inspect such estates without the consent of the owners concerned. 27. Whatever difficulty the Committee may have experienced in this connection under the Tea Licensing Resolution disappeared as soon as the Indian Tea Control Act of 1933 came into operation on November 15, of that year, as, under ss. 20 and 29 of that Act, the Committee were empowered to call for returns. They were also given authority to inspect in certain circumstances, and under ss. 31 and 32 penalties were prescribed for making false returns and for obstructing inspections. 28. It, is, however, argued that the provisions in the Act of 1933 relating to inspection was inserted only for the purpose of enabling the Committee to control the extension of tea cultivation and did not empower them to inspect for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the figures submitted by owners of tea estates in connection with the fixation of tea quotas. It is, therefore, contended that the inspections of the Jhemai Tea Estate, which were made under the orders of the Committee, were illegal and that the reports of the Inspectors should not therefore be admitted in evidence in connection with this case. I am not prepared to accept this argument. 29. It is, therefore, contended that the inspections of the Jhemai Tea Estate, which were made under the orders of the Committee, were illegal and that the reports of the Inspectors should not therefore be admitted in evidence in connection with this case. I am not prepared to accept this argument. 29. Admittedly, the Tea Control Act, 1933, was passed by reason of the acceptance by the majority of tea growers in India of the proposals contained in the London Referendum, and it was stated in para. 6 of the Tea Licensing Resolution, dated May 20, 1933, that- in accordance with the agreement reached by the majority of tea growers in India on the referendum issued by the Indian Tea Association and the South Indian Association, the yearly quota for each estate shall be based on the accepted maximum production of that estate in any one of the four years, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932, allowance being made for young tea. 30. The preamble to the Act of 1933 is to this effect: Whereas it is expedient to provide for the control of the export of tea from India and for the control of the extension of the cultivation of tea in British India; It is hereby enacted as follows: 31. For the purpose of controlling the export of tea Section 14 of the Act provided that the export quota of each tea estate should be determined by the Committee in the prescribed manner. And, according to the rules u/s 23 of the Act, which were published under the notification, dated November 15, 1933, it was laid down that the export quota of a tea estate should bear a specified proportion to the crop basis, which, under Rule 1(2), was defined as meaning the maximum production of a tea estate in any one of certain specific years, with the addition of an allowance for young clearings on the scale set forth in the first schedule to the rules. 32. It follows, therefore, that, in order to exercise their statutory functions, it was necessary that the Committee should be provided with facilities for obtaining information not only with regard to the production of tea but also with regard to its cultivation. 33. 32. It follows, therefore, that, in order to exercise their statutory functions, it was necessary that the Committee should be provided with facilities for obtaining information not only with regard to the production of tea but also with regard to its cultivation. 33. As regards production, the following provision was inserted in Section 20(1) of the Act:- The Committee may serve by post a notice upon the owner of any tea "estate, or upon his agent or manager, requiring him to furnish, within such "period not being less than thirty days as may be specified in the notice, such "returns relating to the production, sale and export of tea produced on the "estate as it may deem necessary to enable it to discharge its duties under "this Chapter" (that is, duties in regard to control over the export of tea). 34. As regards cultivation, a similar provision was made in Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Act, and the scope of this sub-section is also limited to obtaining such returns as the Committee "may deem necessary to "enable it to discharge its duties under this Chapter." This sub-section finds its place in Ch. III which is headed "Control Over the Extension of Tea Cultivation" and relates primarily to the extension of tea cultivation after March 31, 1933. 35. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act is not limited in its application in the abovementioned manner and reads as follows: Any member of the Committee and any officer of the Committee authorized by it in this behalf may, at any reasonable time, enter upon and inspect the lands of any tea estate, and may require the owner of the estate, or his agent or manager, to produce for inspection any records of the estate in his control or custody relating to the cultivation of tea on the estate. 36. The obvious place to insert such a provision is in the Chapter of the Act relating to cultivation and, in my opinion, the words of this sub-section must be given their natural meaning according to the principles laid down by the King's Bench in the case of Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation (1907) 1 K.B. 205. 36. The obvious place to insert such a provision is in the Chapter of the Act relating to cultivation and, in my opinion, the words of this sub-section must be given their natural meaning according to the principles laid down by the King's Bench in the case of Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation (1907) 1 K.B. 205. It follows that, under the Act of 1933, inspections might be held not only for the purpose of controlling the extension of tea cultivation, but also for the purpose of enabling the Committee to perform their duties connected with the control of the export of tea, and I do not think that it was intended by the legislature that the words of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act should be taken to be limited by the head-note of the Chapter. 37. I am further of opinion that, from the circumstances connected with the appointment of the Inspectors in this case, they must be regarded as officers "authorized by it in this behalf" within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 29. It, therefore, follows that no valid objection on the ground of legality can be taken by the Appellant with regard to the inspections of the Jhemai Tea Estate, which took place under the orders of the Committee while the Tea Control Act, 1933, was in operation. In any case, as regards the inspections which were made in November, 1934 and in June, 1937, it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case, which have been proved, that these inspections were made with the consent of the Appellant, reluctant though such consent may have been. 38. As regards inspection u/s 32(2) of the Indian Tea Control Act, 1938, the Committee has now been authorized to appoint any person to make an inspection and, as regards returns relating to cultivation, the powers of the Committee have been enlarged owing to the omission of the words "to enable it to "discharge its duties under this Chapter" in Section 32(2) which corresponds to Section 29(2) of the old Act. In this connection, it was faintly argued by the learned advocate for the Appellant that the Committee acted beyond their powers in calling for returns relating to the cultivation of the Jhemai Tea Estate, but, having regard to the form of these returns, I am of opinion that they were necessary not only to enable the Committee to determine the export quota of the estate but also to enable them to perform their duties under Ch. Ill and it is significant that, as a result of the report submitted by Messrs. Forbes and Smith in June, 1937, the Committee actually called upon the proprietor of the Jhemai Tea Estate for an explanation with regard to the planting of the young tea which the Inspectors had found, as, 'prima facie, the action taken by the proprietor in this matter was not in accordance with the provisions of Ch. Ill of the Act, whereby the planting of new areas after March 31, 1933, was prohibited. 39. It is true that Mr. Brown's second inspection of the garden, which took place on May 30, 1939, does not appear to have been made with the permission either of the Committee or of the owner. This fact, however, does not render inadmissible his evidence relating to such inspection, although it is possible that any obstruction to his second inspection may not have involved the person obstructing him liable to the penalty prescribed by Section 35 of the Act of 1938. The position is, however, different with regard to Mr. Heathcote's inspection which took place on May 28, 1939, as the evidence indicates that he was acting in this matter with the authority of the Committee. 40. The inspection by Messrs Brown and Allen under the orders of the Committee took place on November 13, 1934. The evidence shows that their inspection was of a very thorough nature and their report was to the effect that the only tea which they could find, which had been planted before March 1933, was in a small plot which measured roughly a quarter of an acre. 41. In my view, Messrs. Brown and Allen submitted a true and accurate report of the conditions of the garden as they found them. 41. In my view, Messrs. Brown and Allen submitted a true and accurate report of the conditions of the garden as they found them. It has been proved by their report and their evidence that an area of about 19 acres only in the estate had been cleared in 1934 and that the remainder of the estate was under virgin jungle at that time. It was, therefore, manifestly impossible that an area comprising 125 acres in the estate, as alleged by the Appellant, could have been planted with tea in 1928-29. 42. As a result of this inspection the Ratna Valley Tea Company, Limited, were informed by the Indian Tea Licensing Committee on November 21, 1934, that their application for an export quota had been rejected. 43. Ultimately Messrs. Forbes and Smith were authorised by the Committee to inspect the estate and their inspection took place on June 22, 1937. The Appellant has no criticism to offer with regard to their impartiality and, in fact, he places considerable reliance upon the report submitted by them. 44. As a result of this inspection report the Appellant was allotted an export quota on the basis of one quarter of an acre of land under tea, as appears from the letter from the Licensing Committee dated July 5, 1937, and his crop basis was accordingly fixed at 100 lbs. 45. From the facts and circumstances to which I have referred it is quite clear that the Appellant has entirely failed to substantiate his case to the effect that he planted 125 acres of the estate with tea either in 1928 and 1929 or at any other time but he nevertheless contends that, according to the admissions of the Committee and their agents, he should have been granted a young area allowance, under Clause (2) of the schedule to the Act of 1938, in respect of an abandoned area of 23-33 acres. 46. As regards this alleged abandoned area he bases his case upon the observation in the report of Messrs. Forbes and Smith to the effect that they had inspected an area of approximately 23 -33 acres at the south end of the estate and confirmed that this had been abandoned. 47. 46. As regards this alleged abandoned area he bases his case upon the observation in the report of Messrs. Forbes and Smith to the effect that they had inspected an area of approximately 23 -33 acres at the south end of the estate and confirmed that this had been abandoned. 47. The above statement clearly refers to the area mentioned in column 4 of the export quota application form submitted by the Appellant to the Committee on January 29, 1937, which shows an area of 10-23 acres as having been abandoned in 1931 and a further area of 13-10 acres as having been similarly abandoned in 1932. The corrections in the form also indicate that the Committee accepted Messrs. Forbes and Smith's report in all its particulars, but they only calculated the crop basis of the estate, namely, 100 lbs, with reference to the area found to have been actually under tea at the end of 1936, namely, a quarter of an acre. 48. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the reference to the alleged abandoned area in the report of Messrs. Forbes and Smith and the acceptance of this report by the Committee must be regarded as admissions relating to the existence of this area and it is even suggested that these admissions should be taken as conclusive evidence to the effect that the area in question was actually abandoned. 49. The correspondence read with the evidence of Mr. Pye shows that Messrs. Forbes and Smith inspected the Jhemai Tea Estate on behalf of the Committee. From the nature of their appointment they must be regarded as impliedly authorized to make statements and reports regarding the condition and state of cultivation of the tea estate which they had been asked to inspect and, if it could be held that the Committee which appointed them was a party to these proceedings, the statement in their report regarding the existence of an abandoned area might be regarded as an admission u/s 18 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, the acceptance of their report on this point by the Committee might also be regarded as such an admission. 50. Similarly, the acceptance of their report on this point by the Committee might also be regarded as such an admission. 50. As already pointed out, the Committee beyond accepting the Inspectors' report took no steps to allot any quota to the Jhemai Tea Estate on the basis of any abandoned area and they expressly excluded this area from their calculations in estimating the crop basis of the estate. In the subsequent correspondence on the subject the Appellant himself refused to accept the Committee's calculations as correct and it, therefore, follows that, even if these statements were -regarded as admissions, no question of estoppel could arise u/s 115 of the Evidence Act or any other provision of the law. It follows that, u/s 31 of the Evidence Act, the statements in question could not be accepted as conclusive proof of the existence of any-abandoned area in the Jhemai Tea Estate. They would be regarded merely as items of evidence to which due weight must be attached in considering as a whole all the evidence on the record relating to this matter. 51. It is, however, argued on behalf of the Respondents that the Committee which appointed Messrs. Forbes and Smith to inspect the Jhemai Estate can in no circumstances be regarded as a party to these proceedings within the meaning of Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act as there is no continuity between the functions of the Committee constituted under the Act of 1933 and the new Committee which has been appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1938. I consider that there is considerable force in this contention. It was expressly provided in Section 1(4) of the Act of 1933 that that Act should not remain in force after March 31, 1938. The Committee against whose decision this appeal is directed were appointed on June 30, 1938, and, u/s 3(3) of the Act of 1938, it is provided that the Committee constituted under the Act of 1933 shall be deemed to be constituted under the new Act only until the new Committee has been appointed. The Committee against whose decision this appeal is directed were appointed on June 30, 1938, and, u/s 3(3) of the Act of 1938, it is provided that the Committee constituted under the Act of 1933 shall be deemed to be constituted under the new Act only until the new Committee has been appointed. Section 39 of the Act of 1938 validates certain specified acts of the old Committee but, except to the limited extent provided in this section and in Section 3(5) of the new Act, it is quite clear that the new Committee is not bound by any acts or admissions made by the Committee constituted under the provisions of the old Act of 1933. It follows, therefore, that the Committee which appointed Messrs. Forbes and Smith to inspect the Jhemai Tea Estate cannot be regarded as a party to these proceedings for the purposes of Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act. 52. The question whether or not a young area, which had been planted with tea at any time from 1926 onwards and had been subsequently abandoned, would be entitled to an allowance under Clause (2) of the schedule to the Act of 1938 is one of some difficulty which may require consideration on some future occasion. But, even if it be assumed for the purpose of this case that such an area which had been abandoned between 1930 and 1932 were entitled to receive such allowance, in my opinion, the onus would certainly lie upon the person claiming the allowance to show that the alleged abandoned area had in fact been planted with tea at the material times and that his garden actually comprised an abandoned area as alleged by him. In my view, the Appellant has entirely failed to discharge the onus which lies on him in this respect. 53. It is the Appellant's case that the abandoned area which is said to comprise 23-33 acres was originally included in the area of 125 acres planted by him in 1928-29, but I have already held that the Appellant has failed to show that he brought any of this area under tea cultivation. Even as regards the nursery mentioned in Messrs. Brown and Allen's report in 1934 the evidence and circumstances indicate that this was probably laid out by the proprietor of the estate before Mr. Karim came into possession in 1929. Mr. Even as regards the nursery mentioned in Messrs. Brown and Allen's report in 1934 the evidence and circumstances indicate that this was probably laid out by the proprietor of the estate before Mr. Karim came into possession in 1929. Mr. Karim has not even been able to prove that the quarter of an acre of tea mentioned in the abovementioned report was planted by him, but, as it is admitted by the Tea Licensing Committee that this area was planted about the years 1928 or 1929, he is of course entitled to an export quota based upon this area. 54. As regards the alleged abandoned area, it is quite clear from the evidence of Messrs. Brown, Allen and Nandi that the area to the south of the clearing found by them was covered with virgin jungle and could never have been under tea cultivation at any time. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the testimony of the Appellant to the effect that the whole' of the southern area had been planted with t\a in 1929 and that the portion of this area marked "M" by him in the map, exhibit A1 had been subsequently abandoned by him in 1930. 55. I am, therefore, of opinion that his claim in respect of an abandoned area is false and must fail. The Appellant will, therefore, be entitled to no allowance for young areas under Clause (2) of the schedule beyond the allowance of 47 lbs. with which he has been duly credited by the Committee. 56. It follows from my findings with reference to the various aspects of the Appellants case that, in my view, the claim which he has put forward in these proceedings is entirely without substance. He has failed even to prove that he was in possession of the Jhemai Tea Estate before March, 1929. On the other hand, it has been shown that his account of the development of the estate is false and that the only area which could ever have been under tea in the estate before 1933 was the small area mentioned in the report of Messrs. Allen and Brown in 1934. On the other hand, it has been shown that his account of the development of the estate is false and that the only area which could ever have been under tea in the estate before 1933 was the small area mentioned in the report of Messrs. Allen and Brown in 1934. From the evidence and circumstances of the case it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the Appellant has created from time to time and made use of documents which he must have known to be false and it is abundantly clear that, while under examination as a witness in this Court, he has made a desperate attempt to support a false case by making statements which show that he has no regard for truth or the sanctity of his oath and in this respect he has been guilty of conduct which is particularly reprehensible in the case of a person of Mr. Karim's position. 57. The issues which have been framed in the case are accordingly decided as follows: Issue No. 1. The crop basis of 44,000 lbs. which was allotted to the Jhemai Tea Estate on June 2, 1933, was not fixed after due investigation by the Committee. The question raised in the latter part of the issue does hot arise. Issue No. 2. Yes. Issue No. 3. A crop basis figure of 100 lbs. was. fixed after investigation by the Committee in 1937. Issue No. 4. This does not arise. Issue No. 5. Yes. Issue No. 6. The allowance claimed for young areas under Clause (2) of the schedule has been properly calculated. The question raised in the latter part of the issue was not pressed. Issue No. 7. The Appellant is entitled to no relief. 58. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs which will be taxed according to the scale followed in connection with defended suits on the Original Side of this Court. 59. A decree based upon this judgment should be drawn up forthwith to include the costs in the appeal. For the purpose of executing this decree such steps as may be necessary will be taken on the Original Side of this Court.