AKHTAR MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. KANCHHID AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(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: