JUDGMENT

Petheram, C.J. - (after stating the facts, continued).---The zemindars have u(sic)bealed, and as I have the misfortune to differ from Mr. Justice Rampini as to the meaning of Section 158, I proceed to state my own view of it, so far as it affects the present question.

2. The question is whether u/s 158 the owner of a zemindari can include all the land held by the same tenant within his zemindari, though it is held under more than one tenure, or whether he must make a separate application in respect of the land held under each tenure. The question is entirely one of the construction of the Section, and no question of discretion or convenience or inconvenience can, in my opinion, be properly considered in answering it.

3. The Court to which the application is to be made would, undoubtedly, have jurisdiction to determine a suit for the possession of the land between the zemindar and the tenant, and to determine in one suit questions relating to lands which might be held under more than one tenure; and, as the same word " land " is used in the Section with reference to a suit and an application. I can only come to the conclusion that the framers of the Section meant the same land in each case. Had they intended that the word when used with reference to an application should not mean land, but something else, I cannot think that they would not have said so.

4. The only word in the Section upon which an argument for the respondent can be founded is the word " class " in Sub-Section (c), as it may, no doubt, be argued that if the Legislature had intended that the lands of several tenures might be dealt with in one application, they would have used the pi(sic)tal instead of the singular, as, if several tenures were dealt with, the same pe(sic)on might be found to fall into several classes of tenants. A little consideration will, however, show that this argument is not well founded, as it is equally possible that the tenant may belong to the same class in respect of all the tenures, and then the word in the Sub-Section be sufficient to meet the case; and it would follow that if this is to be treated as the test word, a zemindar might include the land of several tenures in the same application when the tenant fell in the same class in respect of all of them, but could not do so when he would fall into different classes: a result which would be very unfortunate, as it would make the jurisdiction of the Court dependent on the decision of the case.

5. In my opinion there is nothing in the context to show any different intention, and the ordinary rule applies that the singular word " class " in the Sub-Section includes the plural " classes." I think the order of the Subordinate Judge is wrong, and that the case should be remanded to him to re-instate it on his file and dispose of it according to law; but as Mr. Justice Rampini is of a different opinion, the papers must be laid before a third Judge.

Rampini, J. - This is a proceeding instituted u/s 158 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Perg(sic) or The plaintiffs, who are landlords, applied to have determined the inci(sic) two tenancies, now in the occupation of the three defendants. One (sic)c tenancies is described as a jamma, standing in the name of Chiranjib Kh(sic), bearing a rental of Rs. 169-13-6, and the other as a jamma, standing A(sic)L name of Goluck Chunder Bose, bearing a rental of Rs. 69-11-15. The pla(sic)CI applied to have determined the areas, positions and boundaries of the din(sic) plots of land appertaining to these jammas, and the classes of tenan which the defendants belonged; also whether the rents of the tenancies were liable to enhancement or not. They valued their application asas (sic) at a total value of Rs. 5,100, the value of one of the tenancies being, accor (sic) to them, Rs. 3,731, and that of the other Rs. 1,369.

2. The defendants inter alia pleaded that the values of the tenancies were Rs. 1,000 and Rs.300, respecti