Kalian Das vs Tika Ram and Another

Spankie, J.—The plaintiff, appellant, is a sub-tenant, claiming under a lease for a term of twenty years. The occupancy-tenant, defendant, under whom he holds was ejected in execution of a decree held by the zamihdar, also impleaded in this suit. Though plaintiff, appellant, was no party to the suit in which a decree had been made against the occupancy-tenant, he nevertheless lost his possession when the decree was executed. Subsequently the decree of which execution was taken out was set aside, and the defendant, the occupancy-tenant, resumed possession of his holding, but refused to give it up to the plaintiff, his sub-tenant. The suit is one which, in our opinion, is cognizable by the Civil Court, and the claim not one regarding which application could have been preferred to the Collector u/s 95 of the Rent Act. We are fortified in this opinion by a precedent of this Court S.A. No. 1115 of 1877 not reported dated 1st March 1878. We decree the appeal, reverse the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and return the case to that Court for retrial on the merits. Costs will abide the result of a new trial.