1. This is an application, against the decision of the learned Munsif dated 25th January 1930. An application was made by the petitioner before me to be allowed to intervene in a rent suit. The case of the intervenor was that the holding was purchased by him and that the landlord had is fact recognized him by the acceptance of rent.
2. He appears to have an alternative case that even if there had not been a recognition, there is a custom to transfer without the consent of the landlord in the village and therefore he was a tenant of the holding. In support of this application the case of Bacha Sham Sunder Kuer v. Balgobind Singh* (1) has been cited. The question however which does arise is whether I can intervene in revision in this decision, the learned Munsif having exercised his discretion against the applicant.
3. I do not wish to lay down any ruler but in this case I propose to deal with the question on this basis. It is quite clear that the purpose of the rent suit was to bring the holding to sale. This question of whether the applicant was recognized by the landlord will have to be tried, if not in this rent suit, in the execution proceedings; and in those circumstances I think the applicant should be allowed to be made a party to the action to try the question of whether he was in fact recognized by the landlord and that question only. The application is allowed and the rule made absolute. Hearing fee two gold mohurs. This order will govern the analogons application.
V.B/R.K
4. Application allowed.