The authority of the landlord, as the certificated holder and manager of the estate, to issue notices for rent enhancement and ejectment, and the landlord's right to resort to action for ejectment despite issuing a notice of enhancement.

Findlay—The judgment in this appeal will also govern the connected second appeals Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39-B of 1926, the facts of which are, to all intents and purposes, similar.

2. The facts of the case are sufficiently clear from the detailed judgments of the Additional District Judge in civil appeal Nos. 13 and 14 of 1925, in his Court and I find it unnecessary to repeat them here. Each of the defendants has now come up on second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court ordering him to give up possession of the survey number, or part of the survey number concerned as the case may be.

3. It has not been disputed in this Court that the defendants are annual tenants and only two points have been pressed out of the various grounds of appeal. The notice for enhancement of rent in the present case was given on 28th August 1922, and the notice of ejectment was given on 5th December of the same year. The first point for decision is whether the plaintiff respondent 1, Amrullasha, could himself validly give such notice. It is urged in this connexion that he cannot, by himself, represent the landlord and that as a matter of fact, the other cosharers are opposed to his claim. The lower appellate Court has not dealt in detail with the finding of the first Court, which is to be found, in para. 7 of its judgment in suit 182 of 1923 and in para. 12 of its judgment in suit 197 of 1923, in which reasons are given for holding that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been splely managing the village. The kararnama to this effect has also been proved and it is impossible to find any reason for disturbing this, finding of fact which has been arrived at by the first Court, nor has, indeed, any such reason been alleged. On this ground alone, therefore, the first contention urged in appeal was bound to fail.

4. Apart from the two cases quoted by the lower appellate Court, on which it relies for its finding that a notice from the certificated holder Syed Amrullasha alone was a valid one. I find myself in full agreement with the remarks of Mittra, A.J.C., in Second Appeal No. 408-B of 1926, decided on 17th March 1917, on this point. It is important, moreover, to remember that an estate like the present one is, in reality impartible and the persons beneficially interested in it cannot ordinarily demand more than the share of income they are entitled to. Whether or not they are entitled to revise or cancel any agreement for management, which was come to amongst themselves, is a matter I am not called upon to decide, but it is certainly not open to the present appellant, merely because some of such persons may desire that he should be retained in the land, to claim that this difference of opinion amongst the co-sharers would render invalid an ordinary act of management done by the certificated holder who has, moreover, by agreement and by long practice, been recognized as the manager of the estate. I find, myself, therefore, in full agreement with the Additional District Judge in his finding that the notices in question were valid, although signed by Syed Amrullasha alone.

5. The second point urged on behalf of the appellant seems to me to have even less substance. This is that having issued notice for enhancement of rent under Section 78, Berar Land Revenue Code, 1896, it was not open to Syed Amrullasha to issue notice of ejectment under Section 79 idem. These tenantsare annual tecjanats only and, in the absence of an express provision contained in Section 79(2) that it was to be subject to the provision contained in Section 78, it is presposterous to suggest that the more drastic remedy afforded by Section 79 is, or could be abrogated by action under Section 78. Moreover, at any time, the landlord has a right to ask for the rent of the holding to be enhanced under Section 78 entirely irrespective of the tenant who may hold it during the following year for which enhancement is asked. In view of the absolute provision c