Suryamohan Thakur vs Arjun Rai and Others

Beevor, J.—These three appeals have been filed by the same person who was plaintiff in three rent suits. They all raise questions regarding the interpretation of the Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act, 1938 (Bihar Act IX of 1938), but the question raised in second Appeal 628 is slightly different from that raised in the other two appeals. The respondents have not appeared in any of the appeals, but at the request of the Court the Government Pleader has appeared as amicus curiae in second appeal No. 628 with which it will be convenient to deal first.

In this appeal No. 628 the plaintiff-appellant holds a six anna ten pies share in the village in which the rent-claimed lands are situated. The holding previously consisted of 4.21 acres of land held by defendants 1 and 2 under the 16 annas proprietors of the village, but, in execution of a decree for rent, the plaintiff-appellant brought the holding to sale and purchased it himself and obtained possession some time before the Bihar Act, ix of 1938 came into force. At this stage the plaintiff-appellant was holding the entire land of the original holding under the provisions of Section 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. The appellant then settled 1.54 acres of land with Kamleshwari Prasad Chaudhuri, defendant-respondent 3, who thereupon became a raiyat of that area as a separate holding.

This was the position when Bihar Act IX of 1938 came into force. The Act is described in the preamble as an Act to provide for the restoration of certain lands to the former tenants thereof and the reduction of arrears of rent in certain cases. Section 3 of the Act provides for applications by raiyats whose holdings or portions of whose holdings were sold between 1-11-1929 and 31-12-1937, in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and were purchased by the landlord of such holding where such holdings or portions were under the possession or control of the said landlord. An application was accordingly made by defendants 1 and 2, and on 27-2-40 an order was passed by the Revenue Officer exercising powers of Collector for restoration to these defendants the possession of the entire holding, and delivery of possession was given in accordance with that order on 22-4-40. In the meantime, on 19-4-40, an order had been passed for reduction of the rent of the holding from Rs. 37-8 to Rs. 25-8 under the provisions of Section 1124, Bihar Tenancy Act. It is clear that on the delivery of possession objection was taken by defendant 3 which was evidently u/s 11 of Act ix of 1938, and thereafter on 24-5-1940 a revised order was passed by the Revenue Officer for restoration of defendants 1 and 2 to possession of 2.67 acres of land excluding the 1. 54 acres belonging to defendant 3 In the same order the Revenue Officer fixed the rental in respect of the 2.67 acres of land restored to defendants 1 and 2 at Rs. 18-15.

The appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for rent for the years 1347 to 1350 Fasli against defendants 1 and 2 claiming the entire rent at the unreduced figure of Rs. 37-8. Defendant 3 appeared in the trial Court as an intervenor defendant and claimed that a portion of the land was in his possession though defendants 1 and 2 claimed possession of the whole. The trial Court accepted the case of defendant 3 regarding possession, but held that the rent had been reduced to Rs. 25-8 with effect from 1347 Fasli, and further held that the plaintiff was only entitled to that share of the rent corresponding to his 6 anna 10 pies share in the village, and gave a decree for rent in respect of the entire original holding laying down in his judgment that defendants 1 and 2 would be liable for the rent up to 24-5-1940 and that after that date they and defendant 3 would be jointly and severally liable. An appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur.

In the memorandum of appeal to this Court it was urged that two holdings had come into existence and that the decree should be confined to the holding in possession of defendants 1 and 2. In argument, Mr. Jotirmoy Ghosh appearing for the appellant stated that his client was prepared to accept the figure of Rs. 18-15 as the rental payable by defendants 1 and 2 for the holding consisting of the 2.67 acres of land restored to their possession under Act IX of 1938 by the order dated 24-5-1940.

The main question which has been argued before us is the question whether after the order for restoration dated 24-5-1940 the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to recover from defendants 1 and 2 the entire rental of Rs. 18-15 or whether he was entitled only to a share of that rental proportionate to his 6 annas 10 pies share in the village. Before considering this question, however, it is necessary to clear up certain points on which the lower Courts have fallen into error.

Under 3(9), Bihar Tenancy Act "holding" means a parcel or parcels of land held by a raiyat and forming the subject of a separate tenancy. Section 22(2) provides that:

If the occupancy right in land is transferred to a person jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure-holder, he shall be entitled to hold the land subject to the payment to his co-proprietors or joint permanent tenure-holders of the shares of the rent which may be from time to time payable to them; and if such transferee sub-lets the land to a third person, such third person shall be deemed to be a tenure holder or a raiyat, as the case may be, in respect of the land.

The co-sharer landlord holding land u/s 22(2) is not a raiyat and, therefore, the land while held by him is not a holding. It follows that when the plaintiff-appellant settled 1.54 acres of land with defendant 3 he became a raiyat in respect of that land and that area formed a new raiyati holding. It is not suggested that the settlement with defendant 3 was other than bona fide, and nothing in Act ix of 1938 suggests that there was any intention to restore lands so settled to the original raiyat.

On the contrary, Section 11 read with Section 6(1)(d) of the Act makes it clear that if the person, who has taken such a settlement, is in fact dispossessed by proceedings under this Act he may recover possession. I shall refer to these sections in greater detail at a later stage. It follows, therefore, that whatever area was restored to the possession of defendants 1 and 2 under Act ix of 1938 was not the original holding which ceased to exist from the time the present plaintiff-appellant started to hold it u/s 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. It is also quite clear that defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the holding of defendant 8 consisting of 1.51 acres of land settled with him by the plaintiff-appellant. Whatever, therefore, was restored to the possession of defendants 1 and 2 under Act IX of 1938 would form the subject-matter of a separate holding. It is undisputed, and Section 12 of Act IX of 1938 also makes it clear, that after restoration defendants 1 and 2 were raiyats in respect of the land restored to them under the Act.

It follows, therefore, that any claim which the plaintiff-appellant may have for rent against defendant 3 is based on an entirely different cause of action from any such claim against defendants 1 and 2. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to a decree, for rent as against defendants 1 and 2 alone for the holding of 2.67 acres of land from 24-5-1940, the rental for the entire area being Rs. 18-15 and cess being payable thereon at 6 pies in the rupee. The only further question in this appeal if whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to recover the whole of that rental or only a share thereof proportionate to his 6 annas 10 pies share in the village.

I will first summarise the provisions of Act ix of 1938, which are directly applicable to the restoration proceedings which have taken place in this case. Section 3 defines the persons who are entitled to apply, and provides for the form of the application and the period of limitation for its presentation. Among the particulars required to be entered in the application is "the name of the landlord of the holding by whom it was purchased." Section 4 provides for amendment of applications and rejection of defective applications. Section 5 provides for notice to the landlord named in the application. Section 6(1) sets out the grounds on which the landlord may object to the application. Of these, we are now only concerned with Section 6(1)(d):

that the holding mentioned in the application or any portion thereof is in the possession of a third person, and that such third person is in possession of the holding or such portion on his own behalf or on behalf of some person other than the landlord under a settlement which, in the case of a holding or portion, of a holding sold before the first day of January 1937, was made in good faith by such landlord before the twenty-second day of March 1938, or which, in the case of a holding or portion of a holding sold between the first day Of January 1937, and the thirty-first day of December 1937, was made in good faith by such landlord before the nineteenth day of April 1938.

Section 6(2) directs that the Collector shall make enquiry, and prescribes the form of order to be passed according to the different possible findings made by him. Here again we are concerned only with Section 6(2)(d) which prescribes that if the Collector decides

that such third person is in possession on his own behalf or on behalf of some person other than the landlord under a settlement mentioned in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1): (i) of the entire holding or portion sold, he shall dismiss the application; (ii) of a part of such holding or portion, he shall reject the application in so far as it relates to such part, and order that the application shall proceed with respect to the remaining part of the holding or portion: Provided that no order under this clause shall be made unless the Collector Bas given notice of the application to such third person.

Section 8 directs the Collector to determine the land which is liable to be restored to the raiyat under the provisions of the Act, to determine the amount which shall be payable by the raiyat for the restoration to him of such land, to determine the manner of payment, and to order the raiyat to be put in possession. Section 9 prescribes the extent of the land to be restored to the raiyat in varying circumstances. Sections 10,11 and 12 have an important bearing on the question now before us and are, therefore, set out in full:

When the Collector directs under any of the provisions of this Act, that only a part of the holding or portion sold shall be restored to the raiyat, he shall,

(a) if the raiyat and the landlord of such holding do not agree as regards the specific plots to be restored, determine the plots which shall be restored to the raiyat; and

(b) determine the rent which shall be payable by the raiyat for such portion of the holding, and the raiyat shall be liable to pay the same to the landlord.

11 (1) Where a person claiming to be in possession of a holding or portion of a holding as mentioned in Clause (d) Sub-section (1) of Section 6 is dispossessed as a result of any delivery of possession made under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, he may, within two weeks from the date on which he is dispossessed, make an application to the Collector complaining of such dispossession.

(2) Upon the receipt of an application made under Sub-section (1) the Collector shall fix a date for investigating the matter and shall summon the party against whom the application is made to appear and answer the same.

(3) If the Collector, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, is satisfied that the applicant was in possession of the holding or portion as mentioned in Clause (d) Sub-section (1) of Section 6, and had no notice of the proceeding in which the order for delivery of possession was passed, he shall direct that the applicant be put in possession of the said holding or portion.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law or in any custom, when any land is restored to a raiyat under the provisions of this Act,

(a) any simple mortgage or charge created by the landlord in respect of such land or any portion thereof shall not be binding on the raiyat; and

(b) all such rights us the raiyat had in respect of the said land and the incidents thereof before its sale shall revive.

Section 13 provides, subject to certain restrictions, for ejectment of a raiyat who has been restored to possession under the foregoing sections if he fails to keep up the instalments fixed for payment of the amount due to the landlord for restoration. Section 14 allows an additional remedy by way of distrait for arrears of rent falling due during the period while any such instalments remain unpaid. Chapter III of the Act, containing Sections 15 to 20 deals with reduction of arrears of rent and not with restoration of possession. Chapter IV including Sections 21 to 25 contains miscellaneous provisions which I need not mention at this stage.

In my opinion it is clear that when a person dispossessed by delivery of possession under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 is restored to possession u/s 11 of the Act, the effect is that only a part of the holding or portion sold is to be restored to the raiyat according to the directions of the Collector, and thus, in such circumstances, Section 10(b) relating to the determination of rent payable by the raiyat for the portion of the holding will come into operation and this is what has actually happened in this case.

By the order dated 24-5-1940 the Revenue Officer fixed Rs. 18-15-0 as the rent to be payable by defendants 1 and 2 for the portion of their original holding restored to him. The last portion of Section 10(b) directs regarding such rent that "the raiyat shall be liable to pay the same to the landlord". The critical question in this appeal is what is meant by "the landlord". Is it the whole body of landlords of the original holding or is it the plaintiff who purchased the original holding and subsequently held it u/s 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act, until the proceedings were taken under Act, 9 [IX] of 1938 ?

Section 2 of Act, 9 [ix] of 1938, lays down that in this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context the expression "landlord" has, in the area with which we are now concerned, the meaning assigned to it in the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. In Section 3(4) of that Act it is laid down that "unless there is something repugnant in the subject or contest "landlord" means a person immediately under whom a tenant holds and includes the Government." This definition will clearly apply to each individual of a number of co-sharer proprietors or tenure-holders immediately under whom as a body the tenant holds.

Section 3(1) of Act, 9 [ix] of 1938, enabled a raiyat, whose holding was sold within certain specified period in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and was purchased by the landlord of such holding, to apply for restoration subject to certain conditions. If in this Sub-section the words "the landlord of such holding" were restricted in the case of co-sharer landlords to the entire body of such, landlords, I think there can be little doubt that the entire object of the Act would have been largely frustrated. It has not been suggested before us that the Act does not apply where the purchase was made by a cosharer landlord. The fact that it does apply to a purchase by a co-sharer landlord is clearly indicated by Section 3(2) which requires that the application shall contain (i) "the name of the landlord of the holding by whom it was purchased." The last five words were entirely unnecessary if the Act did not apply to a purchase by a co-sharer landlord.

Section 5 directs that notice of the application shall be given to "the landlord named in the application." The next section begins with the words "on the date fixed for the hearing of the application the landlord may appear and object to the application." It seems to me that these words can only apply to the landlord to whom notice has been given that is the auction-purchaser landlord as I will describe the co-sharer landlord who was holding the land u/s 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of these words in Section 6 (1) standing by themselves, I think that doubt is immediately removed on a consideration of the grounds which are permitted by that section to be taken in objection to the application for restoration. The grounds allowed by that section are largely inapplicable to any one but the auction-purchaser landlord.

Section 9 provides for the extent of land to be restored and Section 9(2) sets out the different portions of the holding which are to be restored according to varying areas of the original holding Section 9(3) runs as follows:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sub-Sections (1) and (2) where a raiyat is entitled to be restored to the possession of a part of a holding and the area of that part of the holding which is left in the possession or control of the landlord and which is liable to be restored to the raiyat is less than the area to the possession of which the raiyat is entitled to be restored under the provisions of this Act, the raiyat shall be restored to the possession of the entire area of the part left in the possession or control of the landlord and liable to be restored to the raiyat.

It is clear that the words "the landlord" in this Sub-section cannot possibly refer to any one but the auction purchaser landlord. Section 13 allows "the landlord" to make an application to the Collector for the restoration to him of possession where the raiyat makes default in payment of instalments payable in respect of restoration of the land to the raiyat. Again it is clear that the words "the landlord" can refer to no one but the auction-purchaser landlord. Section 14 gives power to the landlord to use an additional remedy by way of distraint for arrears of rent falling due while such instalments are payable. Reading the words of this section without reference to other portions of the Act, it would be possible to construe the words "the landlord" therein as applicable to the whole body of landlords, but no reason has been suggested to us why the Legislature, should provide any such additional remedy for any one but the auction-purchaser landlord in the circumstances therein specified.

I might refer to other portions of the Act in which the words "the landlord" are clearly applicable only to the auction purchaser landlord, but I think it is unnecessary to pursue the matter in further details unless it is found that there are definite reasons for thinking that the words "the landlord" are in some instances used with reference to the entire body of landlords in this Act. I have examined the Act from beginning to end, and I have not found a single instance in which it is clear that the words "the landlord" are intended to refer to the entire body of landlords On the other hand, there is one instance in the Act where the Legislature clearly wished to refer to the entire body of landlords. This is in Section 3(2)(iii) which requires that the raiyat''s application shall contain.

a statement whether the rent of the holding was settled, enhanced or commuted at any time after the 1st day of January, 1911 whether by an order of the Court or by an agreement between the raiyat and his landlord.

The fact that in this one instance the Legislature has used the words "his landlord" instead of the words "the landlord" in my opinion supports the inference that the latter phrase is restricted to the auction-purchaser landlord.

The learned Government pleader referred to Section 12(b) of the Act which says that on restoration "all such rights as the raiyat had in respect of the said land and the incidents thereof before its sale shall revive," and he suggested that among the incidents so revived was the liability to pay rent to the entire body of landlords. In my opinion this conclusion is quite unnecessary. The liability to pay rent or perhaps even the liability to pay rent at a particular rate was the incident of the original tenancy, but it is not noticeable that the latter is not fully restored when the raiyat is restored to possession of a part of the holding under this Act because the Collector is given power to determine the rent which shall be payable by the raiyat for such portion, and the Act does not indicate that the rent so determined must necessarily be proportionate to the area restored. In any case it seems to me that the identity or even the number of the person or persons to whom rent is payable is not itself an, incident of the tenancy, and, therefore, the revival of the incidents of the tenancy u/s 12(b) does not necessarily involve that the rent shall be payable to the entire body of landlords to whom the rent was payable before the original holding was sold.

As a result I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to recover from defendants 1 and 2 the entire rent of Rs 18-15-0 with cess thereon at half an anna in the rupee from 24-5-40 in respect of a holding consisting of the 2.67 acres of land which were restored to defendants 1 and 2 under the Revenue Officer''s order of 24-5-40, and the appellant should be given a decree against defendants 1 and 2 accordingly, and the decree against them should be modified to this extent and no decree in this suit should be passed against defendants 3.

In the remaining two appeals the plaintiff-appellant was the eight anna co-sharer landlord of the original holdings but purchased them in execution of decrees for arrears of rent and was then holding them u/s 22(2), Bihar Tenancy Act. The whole holdings were subsequently restored to the possession of the raiyat under the provisions of Bihar Act, IX of 1938. The plaintiff-appellant then brought suits for the entire rent of the holdings. The defence raised two points : first, that the plaintiff was only entitled to eight anna share of the rent, and, secondly, that the rent had been reduced. Both these, points were decided in favour of the defence in both cases though the appeals were disposed of in the lower appellate Court by two different officers. The appellant challenges the decision of the lower Courts on both these points.

Now under Sections 9(1) and 9(2)(a)(i) certain raiyats were entitled to be restored to the possession of the whole of their holdings. There is no section in the Act which deals specifically with the rent payable by such a raiyat after restoration in the same way as Section 10(b) deals with the rent payable in cases in which a portion of the holding is restored to the raiyat. This no doubt is because the first concern of the Legislature in drafting Section 10 of the Act was to provide what rent should be payable for the portion restored. In the absence of some legislative enactment, it is difficult to say what rent, if any, would have been payable for such portion. The provisions of Section 12(b), namely, that all such rights as the raiyat had in respect of the said land and the incidents thereof before its sale shall revive would provide no answer to this question. It does, however, answer the question what rent would prima facie be payable by a raiyat who is restored to possession of his entire holding.

Although, as I have said, there is no specific section, dealing with the rent of a raiyat who is restored to possession of his entire holding it does not follow that there is no definite law on the point now in question. I have already in dealing with the case of a portion of the holding pointed out that the revival of the incidents of the tenancy u/s 12(b) does not necessarily involve that the rent shall be payable to all the landlords of the original holding, and obviously this section can have no greater effect in the case of a whole holding than in the case of a portion of a holding being restored.

It would, I think, be a remarkable thing if the Legislature had decided that a raiyat restored to possession of his entire holding should pay his rent to the entire body of landlords of the original holding, while a raiyat restored to a portion of his holding should pay the rent thereof to the co-sharer auction-purchaser landlord, and I should be very loath to read any such interpretation into the Act in the absence of clear words compelling me to adopt such an interpretation. I find no such words in the Act.

On the other hand, I think it is very noticeable that, although the Act deals with possession of raiyati holdings which have been purchased by landlords and have thus passed into the possession of landlords, the Act says nothing about the title acquired by the landlord at the auction sale. There is nothing in the Act which suggests that the sales are set aside or the title of the auction purchaser landlord is varied by the Act except in so far as the provisions for restoration of possession to the raiyat impose any limitation on that title. Therefore, as the title of the auction-purchaser landlord is still intact, it follows clearly, to my mind, that the rent is payable to him. I would add that the entire scheme of Act IX of 1938 seems to show that the Legislature dealt with the question of restoring holdings from the possession of auction-purchaser landlords to the original raiyat as a question with which those two parties alone were concerned, and there is nothing that I can see in the Act which suggests that the Legislature intended in any way to affect or modify the rights or liabilities of the co-sharer landlords other than the auction-purchaser.

For these reasons I hold that the plaintiff-appellant in these two appeals is entitled to the 16 annas rent of the holding.

As regards the other point, the Revenue Officer at the time of restoring the defendant to possession of the holding passed an order reducing the rent. This order purported to be u/s 112-A Bihar Tenancy Act, and was passed by the Revenue Officer suo motu. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the order was without jurisdiction.

The leading portion of Section 112-A(1) runs as follows:

The Collector may, on the application of an occupancy raiyat or a landlord made in the prescribed form, or, if the Governor by notification directs that a settlement of the rents of the occupancy holdings situated in any area or of any class or classes of occupancy holdings situated in any area shall be made under this section, on an application made as aforesaid or on his own motion.

Then follows the specification of the powers conferred which includes the power to reduce rents in certain circumstances. It was not disputed first that the Revenue Officer was exercising the powers of a collector under the section, but it was urged that he had no power to act suo-motu. This depends on whether there had been a notification by the Governor such as is described in the portion of the section quoted above. This is a pure question of fact. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no proof of any such notification. It does not, however, appear that the plaintiff-appellant clearly raised in the lower Courts the question whether there had been any such notification. On the contrary, in the judgment of the lower appellate Court in the case out of which second Appeal No. 1129 of 1945 arises, it is clearly stated that the pleader for the appellant admitted that the Bent Reduction Officer had power to act suo motu. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant before us that he could not be bound by a wrong admission of law made by his pleader in the lower appellate court. The admission, however, was not an admission on a pure question of law, but really amounted to an admission of the fact, namely, the existence of a certain notification which would in law give power to the Revenue Officer to act in this matter suo motu. I therefore, hold that in these appeals the plaintiff-appellant cannot challenge the order of the Bent Reduction officer, passed u/s 112-A, and I hold that the rent has validly been reduced by that order of the Revenue Officer. I would therefore in these appeals maintain the decision of the lower Courts regarding, the amount of rent payable for the holding but would modify the decrees of the lower appellate Court by allowing the plaintiff-appellant a decree for the 16 annas rent instead of the eight anna share allowed by the lower Courts.

As regards costs, I would direct in all the three cases that the proportionate costs allowed by the trial Courts shall be re-calculated on the amounts found due according to the decision of this Court, but I would direct that the parties bear their own costs in this Court and would confirm the decision of the lower appellate Court in Appeals 1129 and 1130 directing the parties to bear their own costs in the lower appellate Courts in those cases and would set aside the order for costs of the lower appellate Court in second Appeal No. 628.

Bennett J.

I agree and I have no doubt that the construction which my. learned brother has placed upon the provisions of the Bihar Restoration of Bakasht Lands and Reduction of Arrears of Rent Act, 1938 (Bihar Act 9 [ix] of 1938) is correct. Not only is that construction one which appears to me to be consonant with the plain wording of the Act, but a Consideration of the alternative construction contended for by the appellant shows clearly, in my opinion, that the Legislature must have intended the construction arrived at by my learned brother.

There are five possible situations which may arise as a result of the application of Bihar Act 9 [IX] of 1938 to the position where one co-sharer landlord in execution of his decree for rent has sold and purchased a raiyati holding. Firstly, the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord may be in possession of the entire holding. This position, of course, would raise no difficulty whether the raiyat who is restored to his holding thereupon becomes the tenant of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord or of all the co-sharer landlords. Secondly, the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord may be in possession of a part of the holding and the raiyat in possession of the remainder of the holding. In such a case, if the raiyat is the tenant of the auction-purchaser, co-sharer landlord, no difficulty arises, but if the raiyat is the tenant of all the co-sharer landlords it becomes impossible literally to apply the provisions of Section 22(2)(b), Bilur Tenancy Act to that part of the holding left in the possession of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord and the resulting position can only properly be resolved if the raiyat is held to be the tenant of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord. Thirdly, the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord may be in possession of one part of the holdings the raiyat may have been restored to possession of a second part of the holding and a tenant to whom the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord had sublet a third part prior to the material date may be in possession of that third part. Again, if the raiyat is the tenant of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord, no difficulty arises, but if he is the tenant of all the co-sharer landlords, then the difficulty arises that there is nothing in the Bihar Act 9 [xi] of 1938 which would warrant any change in the relation of landlord and tenant between the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord and the tenant to whom he had previously sublet such third part and it would be impossible, both literally and in practice, to apply the provisions of Section 22(2)(b), Bihar Tenancy Act to such a situation. Fourthly, the raiyat may be restored to one part of the holding and the other part may remain in the possession of a tenant to whom the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord had previously sublet that part. Here, again, if the raiyat is the tenant of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord no difficulty arises, but if he is not, then there is nothing which can properly be held to effect any change in the relation of landlord and tenant between the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord and the tenant to whom he had previously sublet such part. The position becomes most complicated since part of the holding will be held by a tenant of the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord who will himself in relation to that part be in possession u/s 22(2)(b), Bihar Tenancy Act and the other part of the holding will be in possession of a tenant of all the co-sharer landlords. Fifthly, all four of the above-mentioned situations may be complicated by a restoration of the raiyat''s restored holding to the auction-purchaser co-sharer landlord. No difficulty, again, would arise in such a case if his restoration is to a holding held by a tenant from him but if his restoration is to the holding of a tenant of all the co-sharer landlords the possibilities of complication and litigation are endless.

In my opinion, therefore, when a raiyat is restored to possession of a holding under the provisions of Bihar Act, 9 [XI] of 1938, from which holding he had previously been dispossessed by an auction-purchaser of a co-sharer landlord in execution of his decree for rent, the raiyat upon such restoration becomes the tenant of the auction purchaser cosharer landlord only and the latter alone is entitled to realise the entire rent of the holding from the raiyat.