Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge has referred the following two questions of law to a larger Bench: "1. Whether on the facts and in the cir cumstances of this case the possession of Jagan from the date of the transfer of occu pancy tenancy in his favour would be per missible on behalf of the transferor or ad verse to his interests? 2. In case the possession of the original transferee was permissive in its nature will the possession of his heirs subsequent to his death continue to be permissive or will it become adverse to the rights of the original transferor?"
(2.) THE writ petition in which the reference has been made arose out of a suit for ejectment and possession under Sec tion 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by the respond ents. The plaintiff respondents claimed to be occupancy tenants of the plots in dis pute. On 18th Octobar, 1948 they execut ed a deed of sale of their rights in the plots in dispute in favour of one Jagan, the fathefl of the petitioners. The plaintiff-respond ents' case was that the sale of occupancy be ing prohibited by law the sale was illegal, but nonetheless the possession of the trans ferees was permissive and as a licensee. The licence having been revoked, the transferees were no longer entitled to remain in posses sion. The present suit was instituted against the sons of Jagan after his death, in 1956. The trial Court dismissed the suit On, appeal it was, however, decreed. The appellate decree was affirmed by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has re lied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Chidda v. Joint Director of Conso lidation, , 1968 RD 205 and has held that the sale was illegal because the transfer of occu pancy tenancy was prohibited, yet the pos session of the transferees amounted to a permissive possession and on behalf of the transferor or tenants. Their possession being as licensees, the said licence stood revoked by the institution of the suit and consequent ly the transferees were trespassers after the revocation of the licence.
(3.) AT the hearing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on a cer tain decision of the Supreme Court which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge cast doubt on the validity of the view taken in Chidda's case, 1968 RD 205. He consequent ly referred the two questions mentioned above to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has come up before this Bench.;