1. It remains now to consider the third and last contentionhe appellants. It is argued for the appellants, that as the lease to thedefendants reserves rent at a certain rate per bigha and not a lump sum, as therent of the taluq, they are bound to pay rent for the lands in theirpossession, notwithstanding that they have been dispossessed by their landlordsfrom other lands of their tenure, and in support of this contention the case ofDhunput Singh v. Mahomed Kazim I.L.R (1896). 24 Cal. 296 [LQ/CalHC/1896/88] is cited. The case, inour opinion, is, however, quite distinguishable from the present. There thecase comprised several mouzahs or villages, and though they were granted inputni as a single tenure, the rent of each village was separately Specified,and it was held that the landlord, in that state of things, was not debarredfrom recovering rent for some of the villages, merely because he haddispossessed the putnidar from the rest. But we do not think it can reasonablybe said that each bigha of land is separately assessed and separatelychargeable with rent in this case, in the sense in which each village wasconsidered separately assessed and separately chargeable in the case cited. Onthe contrary, that case is rather an authority in favour of the defendant; forthe learned Judges in their judgment say, after considering various English andIndian cases bearing on the point: "The principles to be gathered fromthese cases are first that, where the act of the landlord is not a meretrespass, but something of a grave character, interfering substantially withthe enjoyment by the tenant of the property demised to him, there is asuspension of rent during such interference, though there may not be an actualeviction. and second that, if such interference be in respect of even a portionof the property, there should be no apportionment of the rent, the whole rentbeing equally chargeable upon every part of the land demised." We may addthat there is a further reason why a lessor should not be allowed to claimapportionment of rent when he has himself evicted his tenant, and that reasonis: "That no man may be encouraged to injure or disturb his tenant in hispossession, whom by the policy of the law he ought to protect and defend;"and that reason applies with special force to a case like the present, wherethe lease is one of jungle lands entailing much trouble and expense to bringthem under cultivation. We are therefore of opinion that the third contentionof the appellants must fail.

2. The result, then, is that the decree of the lower Courtmust be varied so so far as it relates to the land lying to the north of thered line on the Amins map, and down to the point E on the Matbaria khal, andthere must be a declaration in the plaintiffs favour that these lands are notincluded in the kabuliat. Subject to such variation the decree of the Courtbelow will be affirmed, and there will be proportionate costs of the suit andof this appeal.

.

Harro Kumari Chowdhrani and Ors. vs. Purna Chandra Sarbogya and Ors. (31.07.1900 - CALHC)