Bhinku Sonar vs Bengal Nagpur Coal Co. Ltd.

Adami, J.—Mouza Bhagatdih in which the lands in suit are situated, belongs to the Raja of Jharia, who gave a mukarrari to the Dasses, They, in their turn, gave their mukarrari to one Mr. J. Ii. Delmas, and in 1894, Mr. Delmas granted a sub-lease to the plaintiffs. This sub-lease gives the surface and under-ground rights in the, whole village. The plaintiffs, who are the Bengal Nagpur Coal Company, Limited, gave subleases to certain persons for working the coal and these sub-lessees wanted to acquire the lands which are the subject of suit for the purpose of raising the coal; and therefore, the plaintiffs made an application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Dhanbad u/s 50 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act asking for the acquisition of the land. The Additional Deputy Commissioner refused the application because the various tenants contested stating that the present plaintiffs were not their landlords and had no right to seek for the acquisition of the lands. The Additional Deputy Commissioner upheld the objection and on appeal the application was disallowed. Then the plaintiffs'' instituted the present suit on the ground that the denial of their title by the tenants madethose tenants liable to ejectment and in the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sought to eject Bhinku Sonar from the lands inrespect of which, it was alleged, he had denied that the plaintiffs were his landlords in the application u/s 50.

The lower Appellate Court found that Bhinku Sonar was a party to the petition before the Additional Deputy Commissioner in which the denial was made, and it held that because this denial resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs'' claim before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, therefore, Bhinku Sonar was liable to be ejected.

There was no denial by Bhinku that he was a raiyat under the plaintiffs. His case was that he never signed or was a .party to the petition of denial of the plaintiffs'' title. The Courts below found that he did sign the petition and was a party, and, therefore, they held that the plaintiffs were entitled to eject Bhinku from the land. Now both the Courts below have rightly held that the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant can only result in a forfeiture of the holding and a decree for ejectment when, owing to the denial, the claim of the landlord has been dismissed, but the Courts below appear to have been mistaken in finding that, owing to the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plaintiff Company''s application for acquisition u/s 50 was dismissed. It is true that the Additional Deputy Commissioner acted on this denial when dismissing the application u/s 50, but a perusal of the order on the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur to whom an appeal was made against the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner shows quite clearly that the denial of the relationship was not the reason for which he rejected the appeal and dismissed the application. The learned Commissioner in his order mentions that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had held that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties, but that it did not exist so far, as the evidence showed, with regard to the lauds in dispute. The reason for which the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal was that, in his opinion, the plaintiffs were not landlords within the meaning of Section 50 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. He held that it was only the original landlord, that is to say, the Raja of Jharia who could make an application of the nature indicated by Section 50, and, therefore, beheld that the plaintiff Company could not obtain an order for acquisition to the lands. Whether the reason given by the learned Commissioner is right or wrong it is clear that the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant was not the ground on which the application of the plaintiffs was finally rejected, and, that being so, the appellant in this case, Bhinku Sonar, must succeed, for a mere denial did not make him liable to forfeiture of his holding unless that denial caused the dismissal of the application. That being so, the appeal must be allowed and the decrees of the lower Courts must be set aside and. the plaintiffs'' Suit No. 426 must be dismissed.

In view of the attitude of the appellant in refusing to accept a very liberal offer of the plaintiffs of the purchase of 9 or 10 bighas of land which are covered by the plaint, we think that there should be no costs either in this Court or in the lower Appellate Court.

Macpherson, J.

I agree.