Judgment

P. B. SINHA, J. : The main controversy in this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta, against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, centres round the true interpretation and effect of Ss. 15 and 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act - Act VIII of 1885 - (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Courts below have substantially decreed the plaintiff s suit for arrears of rent in respect of a se-patni tenure. Hence, the appeal by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff s ancestor, Nirmal Chandra Benerjee, was a durpatnidar under the patnidar in respect of the tenure in question. He died leaving him surviving, his three sons - Satya Ranjan, Satya Jiban and Satya Kiron - who became the durpatnidars in respect of the tenure by succession, and there is no dispute that they were so mutated in the superior landlord s office. There was a partition suit between them in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipur being Title Suit No. 128 of 1946. During the pendency of that suit, Promode Kumar Benerjee was appointed Receiver of the properties under partition. Satya Jiban died during the pendency of the partition suit. The exact date of his death does not appear in the re