Beevor, J.This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought to recover rent for the years 1345 to 1348 Fasli claimed at an annual rental of Rs. 65-50 besides cess. The defence was that the rental had been reduced to Rs. 40-6-0 besides cess and there was a plea of set off. The only question before us is the question at what rate rent is payable. The trial Court gave a decree at the rate claimed by the plaintiffs but on appeal the Second Subordinate Judge of Monghyr held that rent was payable at Rs. 40-6-0 besides cess as alleged by the defence. It appears that the original rental of this holding was Rs. 65-5-0 but subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 69-15-0. Exhibit 1 is a petition by the tenant u/s 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, for reduction of rent. There is an order of the assistant settlement officer thereon dated 9th March 1938, running as follows: "There is enhancement to this hold, ing which will be cancelled, Rs. 65-5-0." Exhibit 2 is the rent schedule showing that rent was settled at Rs. 65-5-0. This is dated 29th May 1938. Exhibit B is a rent reduction schedule in proceedings u/s 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act showing that the rent of this holding was settled at Rs. 40-6-0. Exhibit O is a copy of order sheet in the case u/s 112A, which shows that that case was one u/s 112A(1)(d). It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the order dated 18th May 1939 reducing the rent to Rs. 40-6-0 and the rent schedule (Ex. B) prepared accordingly on 26th June 1939 were ultra vires by reason of Section 113, Bihar Tenancy Act. This contention was accepted by the trial Court but rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal.

2. Exhibit 1 is a petition u/s 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, which is the section which gives power to the Provincial Government to invest a revenue officer with powers to settle all rents and when settling rents to reduce rents. The reason given in Ex. 1 for claiming reduction of rent is "galla mahaga he wajah se" obviously the word "mahaga" here is a slip of the pen for "sasta" and the reason on which reduction was really claimed was a fall in the average price of staple food crops. u/s 112 (2a) settlement of rents under,this section shall be made in the manner provided by Sections 104 to 104J both inclusive. Section 104E provides for the publication of a draft of the settlement rent roll when it has been prepared and also provides for revision of entries in the draft rent roll by the revenue officer of hia own motion or on the application of any party aggrieved at any time before the settlement rent roll is submitted to the confirming authority u/s 104F. Section 104P (S) pro. vides that after sanction by the confirming authority, the revenue officer shall finally frame the settlement rent roll and shall in corporate it with the record of rights published in draft u/s 103A. The certified copy (Ex. 2) did not disclose whether this procedure had been adopted but on reference to the original record I have ascertained that the draft rent roll was published on 29th May 1938, was submitted to the settlement officer for confirmation on 17th December 1938, was con firmed by him on 10th January 1939 and was finally published on 20th March 1939.

It is thus clear that the provisions of Section 112, Bihar Tenancy Act, were complied with. Section H2A runs:

(1). The Collector may, on the application of an occupancy raiyat or a landlord made in the prescribed form, or if the Governor by notification directs that a settlement of the rents of the occupancy holdings situated in any area or of any class or classes of occupancy holdings situated in any area shall be made under this section, on an application made as aforesaid or on his own motion

take action as described under headings (a) to (e). In this case we are concerned with heading (d) which runs as follows:

reduce the rent of any occupancy holding, if there has been a fall not due to a temporary cause in the average local prices of staple food crops during the currency of the present rent, to such an extent that the reduced rent shall bear to the previous rent the same proportion as the current prices bear to the prices prevailing (i) at the time when the previous rent first became payable, or (ii) if the previous rent first became payable before the preparation of a record of rights under Chap. 10 and the landlord is unable to prove to the satisfaction of the Collector when the previous rent first became payable, at the time when a record of rights was first prepared in respect of the holding.

3. Section 112A (5) directs that the powers conferred on the Collector by this section shall be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This procedure is prescribed by the Government rules under the Bihar Tenancy Act, Chap. VIIIB, Rules 113 to 124. Rule 113 prescribes one form for applications u/s 112A(1)(a) or (b) and other distinct forms for applications under heads (c), (d) and (e) respectively. Rule 114 provides that Br. 82, 83, 84, 85, 87 and 88A shall apply as far as may be to applications u/s 112A. Rule 87 states that it shall not be necessary for a Revenue Officer to draw up a separate decree with regard to the fair rent settled but the entry made in his decision or schedule attached thereto with regard to the fair rent settled shall be held to be a decree. None of the rules governing the procedure u/s 112A provide either for draft publication or final publication of the rent schedule or rent roll.: It is, therefore, unnecessary to publish such rent roll or rent schedules in order to give them validity. No defect in the procedure in dealing with the case u/s 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act, to which Exs. B and 0 refer, has been pointed out. Section 113 (1), Bihar Tenancy Act, runs as follows:

When the rent of a tenure or holding is settle* or reduced under this chapter, it shall not, except or" the ground of a landlords improvement or of a subsequent alteration in the area of the tenure or holding, be enhanced, in the case of a tenure or an. occupancy holding or the holding of an under-raiyat having occupancy rights, for 15 years, and in the case of a non-occupancy holding or the helding of. an under-raiyat not having occupancy rights for five-years, and no such rent shall be reduced within the-periods aforesaid save on the ground of alteration in. the area of the holding or on any of the grounds-specified in sub-ols. (i) and (ii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (lj" of Section 112A.

4. The contention of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the rent of the holding now in question was settled u/s 112 and the orders contained in Exs. B and a are orders reducing, the rent so settled within the period specified. It is, therefore, urged that those orders ara without jurisdiction and void. For the tenant-respondent it was first contended thtfe Section 118 does not apply to the facts of this case. It was pointed out on their behalf that u/s 112A(1)(a) the Collector may cancel all enhancements of the rents of occupancy holdings made u/s 29 or under Clauses "(a), (by -or (d) of Section 30 between 1st January 1911 and 31st December 1936. It was urged that the order cancelling enhancement on the petition (Ex. l) and the rent schedule (Ex. 2) prepared in accordance therewith did not show a settlement of rent or reduction of rent but merely the cancellation of an enhancement. I cannot agree with this contention. I have already shown that the procedure in settling rente u/s 112 was fully carried out in the case to-which Exs. 1 and 2 relate. Moreover, the saving clause at the end of Section 113 (1) refers to Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 112A which clearly shows that those sub-clauses afford grounds for "reducing" rent Yet Clause (c) does not mention the word "reduce" but provides for "the partial or entire remission" of rent in certain circumstances. This shows that the word "reduce" in Section 113 cannot: be read in any narrow or technical sense. The further contention on behalf of the respondent; is that even if Section 118, Bihar Tenancy Act, applies to the facts this did not affect the jurisdiction of the officer dealing with the case u/s 112A and that he had jurisdiction even if he made an error in not applying Section 113.

5. In support of their contentfon that the. revenue officer acting u/s 112A acted without jurisdiction, the appellants first cited the decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR 1933 122 (Privy Council) where it was held that in order to justify a sale of a tenure u/s 208, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, all parties interested in the tenure must be joined as defendants in the rent suit or be sufficiently represented and that where all the parties are not joined or represented Section 211 does not apply and the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to order a sale. I do not think the principle of that decision can be applied direct to the facts of the present case in which there is no defect of parties, and I cannot find anything in that decision which will guide us in the present case. The appellants then referred to the decision of this Court in Bengali Saha v. Gudri Tanti A. I. R. 1942 Pat. 394 . In that case the original rent of the holding was Rs. 65. It was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 82-14-0. On the application of the tenant rent was reduced to Rs. 35-15-0 under Clause (d) of Section 112 A (1), Bihar Tenancy Act; and subsequently enhancement was cancelled under Clause (a) of the section which had the effect of substituting the original rent of Rs. 65. The landlord sued for rent at the rate of Rs. 65. It was held by this Court that no Court could pass a decree at a rate in excess of Rs. 35-15-0. Harries C. J. delivering the judgment gave his reasons as follows:

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 secpnd 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 fifteen years by reason of the provision 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.

In my judgment, there can be no question of res judicata in this case. If the Courts could entertain those 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.

6. From this passage it is clear that the decision was finally based on the ground that the second order in that case 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. That ground cannot afford a basis for decision of the present case. It is true that Harries C. J. considered" certain other grounds but he did not make them the basis of his decision. He dealt with the question of jurisdiction only on the assumption that only one application could be made u/s 112A, Bihar Tenancy Act. In my opinion that assumption is incorrect by reason of Rule 113, Government Rules under the Bihar Tenancy Act which prescribes separate forms for applications under different heads of Section 112A (1). Dealing with the alternative possibility that more than one application u/s 112A (1) could be made, Harries C. J., stated:

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.

7. He did not lay down that after giving a decision on one such application the revenue Court would have no jurisdiction to give a decision on another application under a different head of Section 112A (1). In another case, Srikant Lal v. Ajodhya Singh AIR 1941 Pat. 390 cited on behalf of the respondent, Harries C. J. had again to consider the limits of the jurisdiction of revenue officers. That was a case under the Bihar Restoration of Rakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act, 9 of 1938. It was held that the rent of the holding being a produce rent it came within Section 16 of the Act and the Rent Reduction Officer had jurisdiction to reduce the rent of such a holding. It was pointed out that Section 18 (1) of the Act deals with disposal of applications u/s 16 and that the Collector must dismiss an application of the tenants unless the latter have complied with the three requirements of the Sub-section viz., 2(a)(i), 2 (a) (ii) and 2 (a) (iii), and that if the tenants have not complied with the whole three, they have no right to claim reduction of rent. It was held that the judgment-debtors in that case being occupancy raiyats paying produce rents were entitled to make an application to the Rent Reduction Officer u/s 16 of the Act and that the Rent Reduction Officer had full jurisdiction to call upon the appellant-decree-holder to> answer the application and to hear the parties and make such orders as he deemed proper in the circumstances. It was held that that was not a case of inherent want of jurisdiction. Reference was made to the case in Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Barh v. Dasrath AIR 1940 Pat. 406 for the proposition that there is a confusion between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction and that a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right. If it decides wrong, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right, and if that course is not taken, the decision however wrong cannot be disturbed. Later in the judgment Harries C. J., stated:

In my judgment the Revenue authorities had jurisdiction in this case to entertain the application. It may well be that they had to deoide three facts in favour of the applicants before they could give them relief, and in a sense the existence of these three facts would be necessary to confer jurisdiction; but it was for the Court to consider whether the facts gave it jurisdiction to grant the relief, and the fact that it found the tacts wrongly cannot make its decision wholly null and void. It had jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and it is no answer to say that it had decided wrongly in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

8. Now applying this principle to the provisions of Section 112A (1), Bihar Tenancy Act, it is clear that that section gives the Collector jurisdiction to proceed in two different ways either on an application or on his own motion, but he can only proceed on his own motion if the Governor by notification directs a settlement of the rents of the occupancy holdings situated in any area or any class or classes of occupancy holdings situated in any area to be made under this section. It is -clear, therefore, that if in the absence of such a notification the Collector proceeds on his own motion, he has an inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is also clear that where he is proceeding on his own motion or on an application, the section deals only with rents of occupancy raiyats. If, therefore, the Collector proceeds to deal under this section with the rent of a tenant who is not an occupancy raiyat, again there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. Thirdly, if the Collector proceeds on the application of someone who is neither an occupancy raiyat nor a landlord, again there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. I cannot, however, see anything in this section which deprives the Collector of jurisdiction to receive and deal with an application of an occupancy raiyat by reason of the fact that the rent of the holding has been settled or reduced within the period specified by Section 113. No doubt if it is proved that the rent of the holding has been settled or reduced within such period, the Collector or Revenue Officer acting u/s 112A could not give the tenant-applicant any relief. Paraphrasing, therefore, the words of Harries C. J., it may be said that in a sense the absence of such settlement or reduction would be necessary to confer jurisdiction on the Collector or Revenue Officer to grant relief to the tenant, but it was for the Collector or Revenue Officer to consider whether the tacts gave him jurisdiction to grant the relief and the fact that he found facts wrongly cannot make his decision wholly null and void.

9. The order sheet (Ex. C) shows that the parties appeared before the Revenue Officer on 18th May 1939, and admitted that the rent of this holding became first payable in 1927 and it is clear that neither party put forward any allegation that there had been any settlement or reduction such as would deprive the Revenue Officer of the power to grant relief to the tenant u/s 112A (1) (d). It is true that the Revenue Officer has in this case found the fact wrongly because neither party gave evidence of the true facts before him, but on the principle laid down by Harries C. J. in the above case I think that this did not deprive the Revenue Officer of his inherent jurisdiction to deal with the application u/s 112A (1), and the present appellants, therefore, not having taken steps to set aside that decision of the Revenue Officer by appeal as provided by Section 112B, Bihar Tenancy Act, I consider that the decision of the Revenue Officer reducing the rent to Rs. 40-6-0 cannot now be challenged. For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Manohar Lall, J.

10. I agree.