BEHARI LAL BISWAS Vs. NASIMANNESSA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the holder of a tenure under a patni tenure. In 1309 in consequence of a default by the patnidar the petitioner deposited the patni rent in order to save his tenure and was put in possession of the patni under Section 13 of the Patni Regulation to discharge his lien. The interest of the superior landlord was subsequently transferred and in May last the pa m was sold at the instance of the new landlord, inspite, the petitioner says, of his having deposited the amount due as patni rent. The petitioner has brought a suit to have the patni sale set aside and pending suit applied for an injunction to restrain the opposite party, the purchaser of the patni, from taking possession.

(2.) The Munsif issued an injunction as prayed, but on appeal the District Judge ordered the injunction to be dissolved on the opposite party depositing, as she offered to do, the amount still due to the petitioner out of his original deposit, which he says has not yet been realised. The petitioner has obtained this Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the District Judge s order should not be set aside and why an injunction should not issue.

(3.) The grounds urged in support of the application are shortly that the petitioner has been in possession of the patni ever since 1909, that the balauce of convenience is in favour of his being retained in possession, because not only has he not succeeded in fully collecting rent from the tenants, but as he has been paying the superior landlord s rent for a number of years he has to recoup himself for such payments, which amount to something like Rs. 10,000, and he is entitled to retain possession of the pitni until he has recouped himself, and finally, that if he succeeds in his suits he will be very much embarrassed and there will be a serious complication of accounts if he is dispossessed now.