1. This appeal arises out of a case under section 105,Bengal Tenancy Act. The learned Special Judge has enhanced the rent of atenancy on the ground that it is below the prevailing rate.

2. The tenant appeals.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondentthat, having regard to the provisions of section 109A of the Bengal TenancyAct, as the decision of the learned Special Judge was one settling a rent, noappeal lies.

4. As the appeal has been argued, the question that we haveto decide is, not whether the rent was rightly settled, but whether the learnedSpecial Judge had jurisdiction, to settle a rent at all. We are of opinion thatsection 109A is no bar to an appeal in a case of this kind, in which a questionof jurisdiction is definitely raised.

5. The first ground taken in appeal is that the learnedSpecial Judge had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the tenancy was not governed bythe provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. " This was the view taken by theSettlement Officer. It is clear that the reasons, which the learned SpecialJudge gives for overruling the decision of the Settlement Officer on this pointare based upon a misconception. He proceeds on the assumption that the tenanthad been entered in the record as a raiyat. The tenant has not in fact beenentered in the record as a raiyat. The entry is korfa, a word which certainlydoes not mean "raiyat."

6. We have endeavored to ascertain what meanings the wordkorfa can bear. We have only been able to find one, namely,"under-raiyat." Now the tenant was manifestly not an"under-raiyat." The entry was, therefore, clearly wrong in thatrespect.

7. Now the entry describes the purpose of the tenancy as residential.This appears to accord also with the facts and with the view of the SettlementOfficer. This being so, we hold that the Tenancy Act did not apply. The learnedSpecial Judge had no jurisdiction.

8. We have had regard to the provision in section 103A ofthe Act to the effect that the publication of the record shall be conclusiveevidence that the record has been duly made under the Chapter. But weunderstand this provision to mean only that a Court is precluded from goinginto the question whether the procedure under the Chapter has been followed. Itdoes not preclude a Court from enquiring whether the resultant entry iscorrect.

9. The result is that the decree of the Special Judge is setaside and that of the Settlement Officer is restored. The appellant is entitledto his costs in all Courts.

.

Ramdas Mokhopadhyavs. Bipra Das Pal Chowdhury(24.04.1914 - CALHC)