SURENDRANATH NAIK Vs. RATHA BISWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12 -4 -1956, Plaintiff instituted Rent Suit No. 793 of 1956 -57 for recovery of the money value of produce rent amounting to Rs. 121.50 paise in respect of the years 1362 and 1363 V.S. corresponding to 1955 and 1956. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendants were sikimi tenants in respect of 73 decimals in Khata No. 87 of tauzi 2174. One Kailash Samantaray and some others were recorded occupancy tenants of the disputed land and Defendants 1 and.:: were sikimi tenants under Kailash. The occupancy tenants having fallen into arrears, the proprietor sued for rent, obtained a rent decree and himself purchased the holding in a rent sale. After getting into khas possession of the property, the proprietor settled the land with the Plaintiff on 12 -10 -1942. The Plaintiff, therefore, became occupancy tenant and the Defendants as sikimi tenants continued to be liable for rent. The Defendants failed to pay the rent of the two years in question although they raised double crops of paddy and mung during the years.

(2.) THE defence raised in the suit was that the Plaintiff himself purchased 26 decimals in the name of Sitamoni, his brother's widow, and was in khas possession thereof. Two crops as alleged had not been raised during the two years. On the other hand, the entire paddy crop was washed away in the year 1956 and in respect of 1955 rajbhag had been duly paid. Therefore, it was pleaded that the suit was without basis.' Relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied.

(3.) DEFENDANTS carried an appeal to the lower appellate Court under Section 204(3) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The only question which was canvassed before the lower appellate Court was that the Defendants had no liability to pay the refit claimed in view of the fact that their status had been elevated to that of occupancy tenant's when the proprietor purchased the holding in a rent sale. Reliance was placed on Section 26(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act for the stand. The learned Appellate Judge upheld the contention and reversed the decree. This second appeal has been filed under the proviso to Section 204(3) of the Act.