Law: Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)

Section: 22(2)

  Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885),   S. 22 (2), proviso-Co- sharer-landlord loosing character of landlord under East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951)-Whether entitled to compensation for use and occupation of tenancy.   The co-sharer is not entitled to get compensation for use and occupation, his character as landlord having been lost and changed into a character of one of a tenant directly under the Government in respect of the khas lands only. The East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 has abolished totally the rent receiving interest, whether in the shape of rent or in the nature of compensation. The compensation allowed under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, though could not be called rent payable under the Act by a tenant to the landlord, it was in the nature of a rent received by a rent-receiver. Hence after the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, no co-sharer-landlord who was entitled to get compensation as provided under the proviso to section 22 (2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, is entitled to get the compensation for use and occupation.     ORDER   The plaintiff-petitioner as 8 annas co-sharer landlord, in the S. C. C. suit sought for realisation of a certain sum of money, as fair and equitable, for the use and occupation of a holding alleged to have been acquired by his co-sharer landlords. The learned S. C. C. Judge decreed for costs of the suit but dismissed his claim for compensation for use and occupation on the finding that the rent had been paid by his co-sharer-landlords to the Government.   Mr. Khondkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has contended that in view of the provision in the proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act his client is entitled to get compensation for the use and occupation of the holding of a raiyat which came in possession of his co-sharers, the opposite-parties, on purchase and that the payment by his co-sharers to the Government cannot be said to be satisfaction of the claim of the petitioner.   The aforesaid position can better be…