Harries, C.J.This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Rowland, J. in second appeal affirming concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs claim in part. The plaintiffs were the landlords of a certain holding, whereas the defendant was the tenant. The suit giving rise to these proceedings was brought for the rent due for the years 1343 to 1346 P. The original rent of the holding was Rs. 65 as had been agreed in a kabuliyat of 1914. This rent, however, was enhanced in 1919 to Rs. 82-14-0.

2. The tenant made an application to the Collector u/s 112A(d), Bihar Tenancy Act, for reduction of this rent on the ground of a fall in the local prices of staple food crops during the currency of the then rent. On 20th May 1939, the rent reduction officer held that prices had fallen by over 56-per cent, and he reduced the rent to Rs. 35-15-0. The tenant had also applied for cancellation of the enhancement of his rent u/s 112A (a), Bihar Tenancy Act, and on 18th July 1939, the enhancement which had been made in 1919 was cancelled which would have the effect of substituting the original rent which was, as I have stated, Rs. 65 per annum.

3. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit to recover arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 65, but both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that a decree could not be granted at a rate higher than Rs. 35-15-0 which was the rate fixed in the first proceedings before the rent reduction officer. In second appeal the learned Single Judge took the same view and dismissed the appeal.

4. It has been argued by Mr. B.C. De on behalf of the appellant that the Courts below were bound to decree this suit at the rate of Rs. 65. He has contended that when there are two decisions of a Court relating to the same subject-matter the second decision is the only effective one. That being so, the Courts were bound to disregard the first proceeding and give effect only to the second.

5. Mr. De further contended that Section 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act, only contemplated one application and no subsequent application could be made. If that be so, then the Court bad no jurisdiction whatsoever to hear the application for cancellation of the enhancement, and that order would be wholly ineffective and would leave the earlier order in force.

6. Assuming that a tenant may apply under the different Sub-sections of Section 112A, yet I do not think that a second decision would completely destroy the effect of a decision on an earlier application. The second application in this case was an application for cancellation of certain enhancements, and such cancellation was ordered, It is true that the effect of that order was to restore the original rate of rent. The order on the subsequent application amounted to an enhancement of the rent, and the Court had no right to enhance rent which had been lawfully reduced u/s 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act. Such rent could not be enhanced for 15 years by reason of the provisions of Section 113 of that Act. If this order be treated as an order enhancing rent, then it appears to me to be an order made wholly without jurisdiction. The order, however, need not be treated as an order interfering with the rent but merely as an order cancelling the enhancement--an order which was wholly unnecessary and ineffective by reason of the earlier order reducing the rent to Rs. 35-15-0.

7. In my judgment, there can be no question of res judicata in this case. If the Courts could entertain these two applications based on different grounds, then the decision on the second application would not of necessity destroy the effect of the decision on the first application. On the other hand, if only one application can be made, then the order on the subsequent application is one without jurisdiction, However the matter is regarded, it appears to me that the Courts were right in passing a decree at the rate of Rs. 35-15-0. Once the rent had been reduced to that sum, no Court could pass a decree for rent in excess of it.

8. For the reasons which I have given, I am satisfied that there is no ground for disturbing the decision of the learned Single Judge, and that being so, this appeal fails, and I would dismiss it with costs.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.