Kheta v. Hardwarlal — 1960 DIGILAW 27 (RAJ)

This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur dated 24.1.59, whereby he has accepted the appeal of the respondents and modified the decree passed by the Assistant Collector Kotputli on 12.2.56 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record also. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent sued the appellants for a sum of Rs. 900/-on account of the rent for the Svt. years 2008, 2009, 2010 and part of 2011 and interest therefor on the basis of Qabuliat. The execution of the Qabuliat was admitted by the appellant but he contended that rent for Svt. 2008 had been already paid and that the respondent can recover rent for the remaining period only at the rate fixed by the Settlement department and not according to the agreement. The trial court came to the conclusion that the rent for Svt. 2008 had not been paid and relying on 1956 R.R.D. 202 and 1955 RLW, 1011, decided that the village being a Jagir one and the settlement having taken place the respondents could claim rent only in accordance with the Settlement rates and passed a decree of Rs. 161/15/3 only. In appeal, however, the learned Additional Commissioner holding that the ruling relied upon by the learned trial court being distinguishable from the present case on the ground that in the first case it was not mentioned as to what was the date on which the defendant was admitted to the occupation of the land and in the second case the tenant was in the occupation of the land at the time of the Settlement and no agreement had been arrived at between the parties after the fixation of the rent by the Settlement Department, decreed that as the Settlement Operations had been closed in the year Svt. 2005 and the "Qabuliat had been accepted in Svt. 2007, the case would be governed by the provision of sec. 91(2) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act 1947 under which a person admitted to the occupation of land during the currency of the Settlement or re-settlement was liable to pay the rent as agreed upon between him and the land-holder. The amount of decree was therefore raised to Rs. 825/- the ad-hoc amount of interest of Rs. 91(2) of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act 1947 under which a person admitted to the occupation of land during the currency of the Settlement or re-settlement was liable to pay the rent as agreed upon between him and the land-holder. The amount of decree was therefore raised to Rs. 825/- the ad-hoc amount of interest of Rs. 25/- having been disallowed, but along with further interest at the rate of Rs. /8/- per month until payment. And hence this second appeal before us. 3. The only point involved for determination in this case, therefore, is whether a tenant admitted over a land settled after the closure of the Settlement proceeding would be liable to pay rent at the rate assessed by the Settlement authorities or if would be increased with the agreement entered into between the parties, this being admitted between the parties that the appellants had been admitted over the land, after the closure of the Settlement proceedings, in Svt. 2007 under an agreement stipulating to pay at the rate demanded by the respondents. Sec. 91 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenure Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows:— "91 (1) A tenant who is in occupation of a holding, or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding at the time of settlement, or re-settlement, shall pay such rent therefor as may be determined by the Settlement Officer. (2) During the currency of settlement or re-settlement, a person being admitted to the occupation of land is liable to pay such rent as may be agreed upon between birr and his landholder. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that as admittedly the appellant had been admitted to the occupation of the land after the Settlement Operations had been over he would be deemed to have been admitted "during the currency of Settlement" and would therefore be, as envisaged by sub-sec. 2 of sec. 91, liable to pay the rent in accordance with the "Qabuliat". The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he should be deemed to have been admitted "at the time of Settlement" and therefore entitled to pay the rent determined by the Settlement Officer" as envisaged by sub-sec. (1). 2 of sec. 91, liable to pay the rent in accordance with the "Qabuliat". The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he should be deemed to have been admitted "at the time of Settlement" and therefore entitled to pay the rent determined by the Settlement Officer" as envisaged by sub-sec. (1). The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner and argued that the appellant having been admitted after the closing of the Settlement operations could be deemed to have been admitted only during the "currency of the Settlement" and therefore liable to pay the rent according to the agreement. The decision of the case therefore hinges upon the interpretation of the words "at the time of the Settlement and during the currency of the Settlement." In 1956 R.R.D. 202, the main point for determination was whether sec. 94 of the Act which provides, subject to the provisions of the Act, for the fixing, abating enhancing commuting a rent of a tenant by written agreement, by decree or order of the court or compromise filed in a suit or proceeding would be affected by the terms of sec. 91 or not and it was held that sec, 91 would override the provisions of sec, 94 and the previous agreement, if any, would be void to the extent to which it ran counter to the rate of rent fixed at the time of the Settlement. In 1955 RLW (Revenue Supplement) 111, the decision was on sec. 9(1) of the R. P. T.O. dealing with the rents payable by tenants on reinstatement and which provided that it would be the same as was payable by him before such suit or proceeding was consigned to records or before such decree or order was stayed or before the ejectment or dispossession leading to such reinstatement. and it was decided that a tenant in occupation of holding at the time of Settlement was liable to pay such rent as may he determined by the Settlement Officer under sec. 91 and as no agreement had been proved to have been arrived at between the parties after the fixation of rent by the Settlement Department, he was entitled to pay rent fixed by the Settlement Department. These two cases are not direct authorities on the point at issue. 91 and as no agreement had been proved to have been arrived at between the parties after the fixation of rent by the Settlement Department, he was entitled to pay rent fixed by the Settlement Department. These two cases are not direct authorities on the point at issue. It is not clear from these cases as to when the tenant had been admitted whether during the pendency of the operations of the Settlement or after their having been closed and whether this distinction was at all under the consideration of the learned member deciding those cases or not. They can at the best be taken to indicate that the inclination was more in deciding in favour of the Settlement rates than anything else. The instant case is, however to be decided on its own merits after taking into consideration all the material and relevant provisions of law in this behalf. 5. At the very outset it may be remarked that it would appear to be, on the very face of it, very strange that a tenant admitted during the pendency of the Settlement Operations be liable to pay only at the rate fixed by the Settlement Department and on the other hand a tenant admitted after the closing of those operations (when the rate of rent for that particular land has been already fixed by the Settlement Officer) would be required to pay higher than that in accordance with the agreement executed by him. This appears to be illogical even from the arrangement of the Act. As the preamble of the Act would go to show the Act consolidated and amended the law relating to the "fixation of rent" also. The subject Rent has been dealt with under Chapter VII in which sec. 91 falls. But the Settlement Operations" have been dealt with in the preceding Chapter VI. Sec. 78 of Chapter VI provides that the Government may order by notification in the Gazette the Settlement of rates to be made in any local area and every such area is to be held under Settlement from the date of the issue of such notification until the issue of another notification declaring such operations to be closed. Sec. 78 of Chapter VI provides that the Government may order by notification in the Gazette the Settlement of rates to be made in any local area and every such area is to be held under Settlement from the date of the issue of such notification until the issue of another notification declaring such operations to be closed. Sec. 80 provides that the Settlement Officer shall carry out an economic survey of the conditions of the estate holders and of the tenants in such an area in accordance with the points laid down therein and simultaneously with it and after the completion thereof shall inspect every village, ascertain the factors determining the rent, divide the area into foil-classes and assessment circle and shall select rent-rates for the determination of rent. Sec. 82 lays down the basis for arriving at of the rent-rates i.e. collections, average prices, nature of crops and produce, and the value thereof. By sec. 83 he is empowered to modify the circle rates in their application to a village or specified area or a soil-class. And it is on the basis of the sanctioned rates in accordance with the above procedure by the Board that under sec. 84 the Settlement Officer is to determine rent payable for all holdings. It is after so determination of the rent holding-wise that the slips are to be prepared tenant-wise and distributed and after hearing the objections, if any, the rent would be finally fixed. This scheme goes to show that the rent fixed by the Settlement Officer is to be for the land keeping in view its soil-class and productivity and the prices of the produce raised, and not for a tenant. It has been contended that it would be the tenant who would pay it. But it cannot be denied that he would pay it for the use and occupation of the land and still the rent would be on the land and for the land irrespective of the fact as to who occupies or cultivates it. This is borne out even by the provision of set?. 98 of the Act giving the grounds of enhancement or abatement of land. They are those specified in secs. 55 and 56 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945. This is borne out even by the provision of set?. 98 of the Act giving the grounds of enhancement or abatement of land. They are those specified in secs. 55 and 56 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945. Sec. 55 clearly lays down that the rent of a tenant shall not be liable to enhancement until the next regular revision of Settlement except when the productive power of the land has been increased by an improvement otherwise than by or at the expenses of a tenant or the area has increased. If the rent payable by a tenant is to increase or decrease in accordance with the agreement executed by him, even when Settlement Operations have taken place and rent determined and announced by the Settlement Officer, sanctity of fixity of rent would be lost. This clear background should be kept in view while interpreting the meaning of the terms "at the time of Settlement" and "during the currency of Settlement used in sec. 91. Nowhere in chapter VI dealing with "Settlement operations", the words "At the time of Settlement" have been used. On the other hand the words used are "Under Settlement". This chapter deals clearly with the period of the action taken by the Settlement authorities when an area or a village is actually being settled or in other words with the period of the preparation for the fixation of the rent are being made. Would this period by any means mean to convey "at the time of the settlement", as held by the learned Additional Commissioner and contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. This may mean "during the currency of Settlement" but certainly not "at the time of Settlement". When an area or a village is "under Settlement", any action taken at that time can be said to have been taken "during the currency of the Settlement", but not "at the time of the Settlement". The word "currency* is derived from the word "current". "Current" is a noun which means "running or flowing" and "currency" means circulation". It does not mean "duration", which meaning should be given to it if the term "during the currency of Settlement" is taken to mean the period of the duration of Settlement" is taken to mean the period of the duration of Settlement. "Current" is a noun which means "running or flowing" and "currency" means circulation". It does not mean "duration", which meaning should be given to it if the term "during the currency of Settlement" is taken to mean the period of the duration of Settlement" is taken to mean the period of the duration of Settlement. This meaning fits in even with the general scheme of the Act which arises at the fixing of the rent by carrying out "Settlement operations" in the manner detailed above. It would look absurd on the very face of it that having once fixed rent for a particular land, it could allow the charging of a rent different from that if a tenant is admitted thereon after the fixation of such a rent. If it could be the intention of the legislature that a tenant coming to occupy a land even after the fixation of rent by regular settlement operations thereon was required to pay rent in accordance with the agreement made between him and the landholder, there should not have been any necessity of enabling the carrying out of the Settlement operation and determining the rent land-wise in a regular scientific manner. During the currency of the Settlement", therefore cannot mean anything other than the period in which the Settlement work is being done or settlement operations are being carried out and the rent is not fixed. Naturally, in such a case the initial rent chargeable from a tenant could only be the one that could be agreed upon between him and his land-holder. In case, however, when he is admitted after the determination of rents by the Settlement Officer, be can pay the rent so determined and therefore there can certainly not be any necessity of making him pay more than this if the land-holder is capable of loading him with a higher rate by an agreement. A careful reading of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 91 would again convince of this meaning. There is no coma after the words "or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding" a,nd before the words "at the time of Settlement"; rather, the comas used are before the words "or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding" and after "at the time of Settlement". 91 would again convince of this meaning. There is no coma after the words "or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding" a,nd before the words "at the time of Settlement"; rather, the comas used are before the words "or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding" and after "at the time of Settlement". In other words the phrase "or a person admitted to the occupation of a holding at the time of Settlement", have been used together in distinction from the words "a tenant who is in occupation of a holding". This goes to show that a tenant who is in occupation of holding shall pay such rent therefor as may be determined by the Settlement Officer. Similarly, a person admitted to the occupation of a holder at the time of the settlement i.e. when settlement is being done, or has been done shall pay such rent as may be determined by the Settlement Officer. Sub-sec.(2) would apply when the Settlement Operations are going on, (and the tenant) would pay the rent as may be agreed upon between him and his land-holder. But this liability of his would be confined only to the period during which the Settlement Operations are going on and the rent is not finally determined. As soon as the rent is finally determined, he would pay the rent determined by the Settlement Officer. By this interpretation the whole scheme of the Act is harmonised. A legislation is to be interpreted by the intents of those who made it. The scheme of the Act is to consolidate and make secure the position of the tenants and enable them to pay rents not more than one-third of the produce, as laid down in sec. 82(2). If even when the rent has been determined by the Settlement Officer, a tenant is made liable to pay rent different from it and in accordance with the agreement forced on him by the landholder, the whole purpose of the Act which, amongst others, was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the rights and obligations of the tenants in the State grants and the fixation of their rent would be frustrated. Provision of sec. Provision of sec. 5 in the Act making every agreement whether made before or after the commencement of the Act purporting or operating to restrict a tenant from enforcing or exercising any right conferred on or secured to him by the Act void to that extent would also, otherwise, be frustrated. 6. In this Act it is the "rent" which the Settlement Officer is required to fix. Definition of "rent" for the purpose of this Act is the same as given in sec. 4(8) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act 1945, which means whatever is payable in cash or in kind on account of use or occupation of land. Also the rent is required to be fixed with a tenant. A tenant would therefore be liable to pay after the Settlement, rent which has been determined only in accordance with that rate and no more and no less. 7. In brief, it is clear that a tenant in occupation of a holding, irrespective of the time when he comes to occupy it, will be liable to pay, as soon as the rent has been determined by the Settlement Officer, the same rent for the use and occupation of land held by him. The time of his taking over the land would be immaterial for the purpose. If he is admitted at the time when the Settlement Operations are going on (which is the meaning of the term "during the currency of the Settlement" used in sub-sec. (2), as there would be no rent determined at that time or if a re-settlement is going on there, would be exceptions for the increase or decrease of the rent by way of revision. A land-holder could enter into an agreement with a tenant pending such determination, originally or revised, and the tenant can be liable to the payment of this rent in accordance with the agreement for the period until the rent is finally determined originally or by way of revision. As soon as, however, the rent is determined, in accordance with the provision of sub-sec. (1) "a tenant in the occupation of holding,......... Correction; Lines 21 end and 22 read Sub-sec. As soon as, however, the rent is determined, in accordance with the provision of sub-sec. (1) "a tenant in the occupation of holding,......... Correction; Lines 21 end and 22 read Sub-sec. (2) would then read that a person admitted to occupation of land when the Settlement Operations are going on would pay the rent shall be liable to pay the rent determined by the Settlement Officer." Even if he is admitted at the time of Settlement, it would be the same and similarly even if he is admitted during the period the Settlement operations are being carried on, he would pay the same rent as may be so determined as soon as it is finally determined by the Settlement Officer. The words "at the time of re-settlement" have been used in sec. 81 also. These words can mean only that in the course of settlement operations the Settlement Officer would be required to do such and such act. The words "during the currency of Settlement" can also similarly mean during the time the settlement proceedings and operations are going on. Unless we give this meaning it is not possible, as laid down in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 91, that a tenant in occupation of a holding shall pay the same rent as determined by the Settlement Officer. 8. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner and remand the case back to him to re-determine the amount required to be paid by the appellants (as he does not appear to have examined the amount actually payable from this point of view) keeping in view the observation made above.