( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 3010-1971, whereby the Addl. District Judge has after reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 20-4-1970 dismissed the suit for recovery of rent.

( 2 ) FACTS essential for the decision of this appeal are as under : Shri Manoharlal, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff-appellant herein brought the suit giving rise to this appeal on the allegations that the suit lands were acquired fot the defendant-company under the provisions of the Kanoon Mutallik Husul Aarazi, samvat 1974 (for short, the Acquisition Act) and were allotted to them, the defendant-company on 28-7-1938 (Samvat 1995 ). The plaintiff and Choudhari kacharsingh were co-tenants of the said lands. A Patta dated 28-7-1938 (Ex. P/6) was executed between the parties. The rent (annual Lagan) reserved thereby was Rs. 100/- per annum. Term No. 4 of the said Patta provided that half of the Lagan will be paid to the plaintiff and the remaining half to choudhari Kacharsingh. In case of the rent remaining due in arrears the defendant undertook liability to pay interest thereon at the rate of 1 % per mensem, vide term No. 6. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant-respondent had paid to the plaintiff rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per year up to 1962. However, the rent accruing due thereafter has not been paid in spite of demand by notice dated 17-4-1967 Ex. P/4, served on 20-4-1967, vide Acknowledgment Due Ex. P-5. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 150/ after giving up the claim for time- barred rent and Rs. 48/- by way of interest at the rate of 1% per measem -- in all Rs. 198. 00.

( 3 ) THE claim of the plaintiff-appellants was resisted by the defendant-respondent-company on the grounds that the suit suffers from the defect of non-joinder of the necessary parlies and status of the defendant under the patta is that of a sub-tenant (Shikmi ). This status continued up to 2-10-1959. Consequently, the defendant became the occupancy tenant and thereafter bhumiswami. Accordingly, the suit is not maintainable and that the Patta was granted by two persons, namely, the plaintiff and Choudhari Kacharsingh. As such, the suit could not be brought by the plaintiff alone without joining chondhari Kacharsingh.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit Aggrieved by this judgment and decree and defendant preferred an appeal, which has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed on the findings that the defendant has become Bhumiswami of the suit lands and that the suit is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of choudhari Kacharsingh as a party to the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) IN this appeal If was contended by Shri S. R. Joshi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants that in view of the term No. 4, reserving liability of the defendant to pay half of the land revenue separately to the plaintiff, the suit was maintainable without joining Choudhari Kachavsingh, the co-tenant; that the first appellate Court has acted contrary to law in holding that by virtue of section 185 (1) (ii) (b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for abort, the code), the defendant-company became occupancy tenant of the suit lands and thereafter Bhumiswami, and that the purpose for which the lands in dispute were acquired was non-agricultural, i. e. for establishing a factory by the respondent thereon. As such, there could be neither confenral of the status of occupancy tenant on them, nor could they become Bhumiswami of the lands in dispute.

( 6 ) SHRI S. M. Jhanvar, assisted by Shri D. D. Vyas, leaned counsel for the respondent-company, argued in support of the impugned judgment and contended that the factum of the sub-lease being for non-agricultural purpose is not enough to rule out the applicability of Section 185 (1) (ii) (b) of the Code, that the plaintiff having become a Bhumiswami of the suit lands u