Roe, J.:— The land in suit in this case has been recorded in the finally published Record of Rights as being the bakasht of the plaintiff, who is a cosharer proprietor of the village. The case made out in the plaint was that it was not true bakasht land, but it was an old occupancy holding, which had been acquired by the plaintiffs and for which they paid rent to their co-sharer maliks. The learned Munsif who tried the case came to the conclusion that there-was nothing to show that the land had ever been an occupancy joke, and he appears to have accepted the evidence of two of the plaintiffs' witnesses that the land was kamat land. The learned Subordinate Judge does not come to a finding, upon this point. He describes the land simply as the bakasht land of the plaintiffs.
2. The position of the defendant is that he was inducted on to the land by the common manager of the whole body of landlords. He is himself a cosharer proprietor, and it is the case common to both sides that he pays rent not to the whole body of landlords, but to those among them only who are the plaintiffs in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge, found that his position is that of a non-occupancy raiyat who can be evicted upon 1 service of notice as one who is holding on a lease from year to year, the suit being one for ejectment. The suit was decreed in the Appellate Court upon this ground. In the Court of first instance the suit was dismissed although as it seems to me if the learned Munsif was going to accept evidence that the land was kamat land he should have accepted that evidence in its entirety and regarded the land as falling under S. 116. That however is immaterial to the present question. We may assume for the purposes of the case, that the plaintiff's story as given in the, plaint is the correct story that he is cosharer proprietor and acquired these lands in the manner contemplated be Section 22 of the Ben. Ten. Act, but he has also let out the land in the manner contemplated by S. 22(2), and that being so the person to whom he has let out the land becomes a raiyat upon the land, and as a raiyat, whether he has a right of occupancy or not be cannot be ejected except upon conditions prescribed in the Bengal Tenancy Aiet, none of which have been fulfilled. It is however contended by Mr. Kulwant Sahay that a cosharer proprietor of a village is not a third person within the meaning of S. 22(2). I for my own part fail to appreciate this distinction. It is a mere accident that the defendant in this case holds a small share in the village.
3. He was inducted on to the land as a tenant and not as a proprietor, and as a person intending to cultivate the land With his own sloughs, to my mind he is an third person within the meaning of the section. I would therefore decree this appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.
4. Coutts, J.:— I agree.
V.S/R.K
5. Appeal allowed.