SUNDER LAL Vs. SUBEDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises-out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the appellant, professing to act as "lambardar" of "mahal" No. 3 in village Chaurihanpur, District Shahjahanpuiv It is not disputed that this "mahal stands subdivided by an imperfect partition into a number of "pattis" one of which is patti Peru Singh. It is also-not in dispute that the plaintiff-appellant has no proprietary interest in Patti Pem Singh. The land for which rent is claimed from the defendant-respondent. Subedar Singh, who is alleged to be the-tenant, is in its entirety situate in Patti. Pem Singh. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff- appellant is not empowered to collect rent in Patti Pem Singh. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to sue the defendant-respondent for rent, assuming it is payable by him, in respect of the holding in dispute-which is also in controversy.

(2.) In second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant, it is contended on his behalf that the "lambardar" of a "mahal" is the only person authorized to collect rent in respect of land within that " mahal " though it may be situated in a "patti " in which the "lambardar" himself is no eosharer and has no proprietary interest. We are clearly of opinion that this contention is not warranted by the language of Section 265, Agra Tenancy Act, on which the contention is based. Sub-section 1 of that section runs as follows: The lambardar in an undivided mahal or in the common land of the mahal, thok or patti of which he is the lambardar is entitled in the absence of any contract or usage to the contrary to collect rents and other dues.

(3.) The plaintiff-appellant is not a lambardar in an undivided mahal. It is argued that he is entitled to collect the rent payable in respect of land in Patti Pem Singh, which is " common land " so far as cosharers of that patti are concerned, and that it is not necessary that the lambardar should be one of the cosharers qua such land. In our opinion,, a lambardar is not entitled to collect rent, unless the land for which rent is claimed belongs to all the cosharers of the mahal, if he is the lambardar of the mahal, or to all the cosharers of the patti if he is the lambardar of the patti. In every case it is necessary that the lambardar should have a community of interest Svith other cosharers in the land for which rent is claimed. If the lambardar has no proprietary interest in such Hand, as is the case before us, he is not empowered, by Section 265(1), Agra Tenancy Act, to collect rent in respect of such land. Another Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view of Section 265 in All Khan V/s. Masihulzaman Khan . Accordingly we uphold the view on which the decree of the lower appellate Court proceeds.