Judgement

BHARGAVA, J. : The disputed land was the ex-proprietary tenancy of one Parmeshwar Singh who, on the 5th June, 1947, executed a sub-lease in favour of the appellants on an annual rent of Rs. 74. The sub-lease was registered on 22nd June, 1947. It laid down that the tenancy was to commence from the beginning of the year 1355 Fasli, i. e., with effect from 1st July, 1947. In pursuance of this sub-lease, the appellants entered into possession. On 15th January, 1951, Parmeshwar Singh, the ex-proprietary tenant, surrendered his tenancy rights to the landlord and on the same date the landlord executed a lease in respect of this land in favour of the respondents. The appellants, however, continued to remain in possession. Thereafter, on 1st July, 1952, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into force. Disputes arose between the appellants and the respondents who both claimed to have become Sirdars of this land and consequently, on 1st August, 1952, the appellants instituted a suit for a declaration that they were the Sirdars of the disputed land. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants. In the alternative, a prayer was also made for a decree for possession in case it was found that the appellants had been dispossessed. The Munsif, who tried the suit held that the appellants had become Sirdars under Section 19 (vii) of the Act and, consequently, decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed by the first appellate Court as well as by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in second appeal. A special appeal to a Division Bench was taken up by the respondents with the leave of the single Judge. In this special appeal, the High Court held that the appellants did not become Sirdars of this land when the Act came into force and, consequently, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the appellants. The appellants have now come up to this Court against this decree of the High Court under special leave granted by this Court.

2. The appellants claimed to have become Sirdars of this land under S. 19 (vii) of the Act which is as follows :-

"19. All land held or deemed to have been held on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person as-

* * * * * *

* * * * * *

(vii) a sub-tenant referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939,

* * * * *

* * * * *

shall, save in cases provided for in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such person, who shall subject to the provisions of this Act be entitled, except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 18, to take or retain possession as a Sirdar thereof." In order to substantiate this claim, the appellants thus had to prove that this land was held or must be deemed to have been held by them on the 30th June, 1952 as sub-tenants referred to in sub-section (4) of S. 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"). The question arose, because the appellants were holding as sub-tenants from Parmeshwar Singh who surrendered his rights as chief tenant on the 15th January, 1951, before the relevant date mentioned in S. 19 (vii) of the Act; Section 47 (1) of the Tenancy Act lays down that, except as otherwise provided in sub-section (3) and sub-section (4), the extinction of the interest of a tenant, other than a permanent tenure, holder or a fixed rate tenant, shall operate to extinguish the interest of any tenant holding under him. This sub-section when applied to the case of the appellants, ignoring the exceptions laid down in it, necessarily leads to the conclusion that, when Parmeshwar Singh on 15th January, 1951 surrendered his rights as ax-proprietary tenant, the interest of the appellants who were holding as sub-tenants under him, came to be extinguished. On behalf of the appellants, how