MUNNA Vs. BAIJ NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act, The plaintiffs were admittedly occupancy tenants of the holding comprising the plots in dispute. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant was in possession as their sub-tenant and as such was liable to ejectment.

(2.) The defence to the suit was that the relation of landholder and tenant did not exist between the parties, and that the plots in dispute were once in possession of Kallu and Madhol, who left the village and then the defendant entered into possession of the same about six years prior to the institution of the suit in the capacity of a zemindar.

(3.) The trial Court held that the holding belonged to several co-sharers, and that the rent of the holding was actually realised by Chandra Shekher lambardar and by another co-sharer named Raj Bahadur, and the defendant never collected any portion of the rent due in respect of the holding. It further held that there was no evidence to show that the defendant ever illegally dispossessed the tenants in possession of the plots in dispute. On these findings it held that the relation of landholder and tenant existed between the parties and decreed the plaintiffs suit.