Authored By : Loftus Richard Tottenham, S.C. Ghose

Loftus Richard Tottenham and S.C. Ghose, JJ.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether, after thetransfer of a tenure by the recorded tenant to another person, that transferhaving been duly registered under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, thetransferor is still liable for the rent of the tenure until the landlord hasactually received notice of such transfer.

2. The suit was brought to recover the rent of severalyears--from 1292 to Assin 1295. The defendant pleaded that in the month ofChait 1293 he had transferred his tenure to another person, that he had had thetransfer duly registered, and that he had deposited the rent due, withinterest, up to the end of 1293, and he contended that he was not liable forany subsequent rent.

3. The Lower Appellate Court admitted the plea as valid; anddeclined to permit the landlord to call evidence to show that he had notactually received notice of the transfer. And in so ruling acted upon theauthority of the case of Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. Kristo Lal Singh I.L.R. Cal.642 in which, the law having been discussed, a Division Bench laid down thatthe transfer was complete when the registration took place.

4. The law itself provides that the registration shall nottake place unless the transferor or transferee deposits the landlords fee forthe mutation of names in the landlords books. It also provides that theregistering officer shall upon registration forward this fee to the Collector,and that the Collector shall forward it with notice to the landlord.

5. The decision in Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. Kristo Lal SinghI.L.R. Cal 642 lays down that the transferor is no longer liable for any rentaccruing after his transfer is duly registered according to the provisions ofthe Bengal Tenancy Act. This decision has been apparently approved of by arecent Full Bench decision in Mahomed Abbas Mondul v. Brojo Sundari DebiaI.L.R. Cal. 360. That decision is a direct authority in support of the LowerCourts decision, and we are not prepared to dissent from it. The law seemspretty clear upon the subject; and although it might seem a case involvinghardship to the landlord, that though he may not have received a notice, bysome neglect on the part of the Registrar or of the Collector, he is stillliable to pay the costs of the suit for rent subsequently brought against thewrong person. Although it certainly was the case before the Bengal Tenancy Actwas passed that the Courts always held that the landlord is entitled to look tohis recorded tenant for all rent until he receives due notice of the transfer,the present law, as explained by the decision in Kristo Bulluv Ghose v. KrisloLall Singh appears to have altered that state of things.

6. We think we are unable to give the appellant any relief,and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

.

Chintamoni Dutt vs.Rash Behari Mondul (10.07.1891 - CALHC)