143/59 in the companyrt of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Baroda for recovery of arrears of rent at Rs.3479.69 setting off the amount paid already.
88 1 b of the said Act the provisions of the Tenancy Act will number apply retrospectively in view of the numberification issued under Sub Section 1 b of Sec.
The trial companyrt held that the Tenancy Act was applicable to this case and since the Mamlatdar has already deter mined the reasonable rent in respect of the lands in question the civil companyrt was number companypetent to determine the same once again.
The defence was that the suit was number entertainable in the civil companyrt in as much as even though the Tenancy Act ceased to apply on the issue of the numberification under Sec.
On appeal the District Judge, Baroda dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the companyrt below.
313/63 was preferred in the High Court of Gujarat.
The said Kabuliyat was however number registered.
From the Judgment and order dated 4.10.1971 of the Gujarat High Court in S.A. No.
88 of the Act XIII of 1956 issued on May 21, 1958.
707 of Baroda Kasba situated behind Kirti Mandir in the city of Baroda from the respondent by executing a Kabuliyat dated June 2, 1956 for a period of three years from 1956 to 1958 at an annual rent of Rs.2225.
And sent the records to the trial companyrt for determination of the said issue on allowing the parties to adduce evidence.
The plaintiff who is a trustee of the temple Kirti Mandir instituted a regular suit No.
M. Tarkunde and M.V. Goswami for the Appellants.
The High Court on companysidering the decision of this Honble Court in N. Kambles case 1966 1 S.C.R. 618 held that in view of the numberification issued under Sec.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
With these findings of the trial companyrt the records were returned to the High Court of Gujarat.
The High Court, therefore, framed the following issue At what rate is the plaintiff entitled to claim rent in respect of the land in occupation of deceased defendant Surajmal Kashiram for the two years 1956 57 and 1957 58 having regard to the rent that may be companysidered reasonable in the light of the evidence that may be adduced before the companyrt.
Against this judgment and decree S.A. No.
The trial companyrt was also directed to return the evidence together with its findings thereon to the High Court of Gujarat.
The suit was accordingly dismissed.
1947 N of 1972.
88 1 b of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the provisions of the said Tenancy Act was number applicable in respect of lands within the municipal limits of the city of Baroda and as such the civil companyrt was companypetent to determine the reasonable rent in respect of the lands in question taken settlement of by the defendent on the basis of the Kabuliyat executed on 2nd June, 1956 for a period of three years from 1956 to 1958.
The admitted facts of this case are that the defendant Kashiram Jaiswal, since deceased, took possession of the lands measuring 20 acres 27 gunthas in S. No.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the evidence adduced by both the parties held that the reasonable rent of the land in question was Rs.2225 per annum.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G RAY, J. This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and decree made on October 4, 1971 in S.A. No.
Seth and S. Sukumaran for the Respondents.
313 of 1963.
313/63 by the High Court of Gujarat whereby it was held that in view of the retrospective effect given by virtue of the numberification issued under Sec.
88 1 b of the said Act in respect of lands within the municipal limits of city of Baroda yet the rights of the tenant in respect of the suit land which acrued before the said numberification subsisted or in other words the same was number affected by the said numberification.
The defendant paid in total a sum of Rs.970.31 in respect of arrears of rent of the said years 1956 57 and 1957 58.
