A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. His suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate court on a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the house in suit and alleged that the defendant No. 1 was its tenant on behalf of the plaintiff on eight annas per month. A notice of ejectment was given to the defendant No. 1 but he replied to it denying the plaintiff's title. The defendant No. 2 was said to be in collusion with defendant No. 1 and was in possession of the house as a result of that collusion. The plaintiff, therefore, sued for possession over the house and also claimed Rs. 18 as arrears of rent. The suit was contested by both the defendants who denied the plaintiff's title and said that they were the owners of the house. The trial court decreed the suit as it accepted the plaintiff's allegations. The defendants went up in appeal to the lower appellate court and raised a preliminary objection that as a result of the abolition of Zamindari the plaintiff had lost his right to sue in respect of the house. They said that under Sec. 9 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the house must be deemed to have been settled with them. This preliminary objection found favour with the lower appellate court and it has, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It has not gone into any of the other questions raised.
(2.) In the second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff it is urged that the view of law taken by the lower appellate court is incorrect. The contention appears to be well founded.
(3.) Sec. 9 of which the defendants wanted to take advantage reads as follows: "All wells, trees in the abadi and all buildings situate within the limits of an estate, belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person whether residing in the village or not, shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person, as the case may be, and the site of the wells or the buildings, within the area appurtenant thereto, shall be deemed to be settled with him by the State Government, on such terms and conditions as may he prescribed." According to the plaintiff the building in question belonged to him and was held by him as an intermediary. Under Sec. 9, even after the abolition of Zamindari it was to continue to belong to him and to be held by him and the site was to be deemed to be settled with him. Simply because the plaintiff had let out the house to the defendant, the house did not cease to belong to him. Nor could it be said that the plaintiff had ceased to hold the house because he let it out to some body else. If he was realising the rent from the tenant and was entitled to resume possession by determining the tenancy he could be deemed in law to be holding the property. It cannot, therefore, be said that as result of the abolition of Zamindari the plaintiff necessarily lost all his rights in the house and had no right to sue in respect of it.;