UPENDRA NATH SINHA Vs. MAHARAJADHIRAJ OF BURDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was obtained by an applicant under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and is directed against an order dated 28th September 1948 passed by the learned District Judge of Birbhum.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and may be stated as follows: The disputed land formed part of a non-transferable occupancy holding which was held under the opposite party No. 1. On 10th March 1927 one Panchanan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, purchased a share in the said holding. In execution of a certificate for arrears of rent obtained by the landlord opposite party No. 1 against the recorded tenant, the disputed holding was brought to sale on 22nd November 1938 and was purchased by the certificate, holder. Thereafter the purchaser at the certificate sale took possession on 2nd July 1942. To these proceedings Panchanan Singh or the present petitioner was not made a party, presumably because the purchase by Panchanan Singh was not recognised by the landlord. After the coming into operation of Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act an application was filed under that section by the present petitioner who had succeeded to the interest of Panchanan Singh on 24th May 1943. On 31st January 1945 opposite party No. 2 was impleaded as an occupant in possession. The proceedings under Section 37A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act continued before the Special Debt Settlement Board. The application was ultimately allowed by the Board. An appeal was taken against the decision of the Board. The appeal was dismissed. Against the order of the Appellate Officer the opposite party moved the District Judge who allowed the same. A petition in revision against the order of the District Judge was filed in this Court and a rule was obtained which was registered as C. Rule 412 of 1948. This rule was heard by Mukherjee J. on 28th August 1948. The rule was made absolute, the order of the learned District Judge was set aside and the case was remitted to the learned District Judge for a decision of the other points which arose on the petition filed before the District Judge which had not been previously disposed of by him. After the matter went back on remand, the learned District Judge held that the petitioner being the suecessor-in-interest of transferee of a non-transferable occupancy holding had no locus standi to make the application in view of the terms of Section 37A (1) (b) (iii). The reason given was that Panchanan Singh or his successor, the present petitioner had not been recognised as a tenant and therefore it could not be said that the petitioner or Panchanan Singh was jointly liable with any other person in respect of a debt for arrears of rent. It is the propriety of this order which is challenged in this Rule.

(3.) The question which arises in this rule turns on the interpretation of Section 37A (1) (b) (iii) which runs thus: