KAMTA PRASAD Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this and the connected Appeal No. 51 of 1912, have arisen are set out at length in our judgment in L.P.A. No. 49 of 1912. Those two appeals arise out of the two suits for rent therein mentioned.

(2.) We find it impossible to hold that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to recover the rent which he claims in regard to the period of time between the two ejectments. Admittedly, no rent was fixed as between the present parties, either, by agreement or by decree of Court. Section 34 of the Tenancy Act (II of 1901 Local) clearly does not, and was never intended to, apply to the circumstances of the present case. It relates to the case of a person taking possession for the purpose of cultivating as a tenant without the consent of the land-holder.

(3.) Here the present appellant-defendant took possession with the full consent of the land-holders, Godha and Hamir Singh, in the year 1897. It is true that the latter, by operation of law, became the ex-proprietary tenants and have been ejected and that the appellant continued to occupy the land. Section 34 clearly does not apply.