Jagannatha Charry () v. Rama Rayer (Petitioner) .

We think this appeal must he allowed. The case is practically concluded by the decision in Innasi Pilai v. Sivagnana Desikar(1) which was affirmed on appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 1894. In that case it was held that the right to collect rent was immoveable property and that an action could be brought under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for dispossession of that right. Here the tenant in possession was dispossessed immediately before his tenancy terminated and at the time of the action his tenancy had ceased. At the time of the dispossession the plaintiff, the landlord, was in possession by his tenant, and the physical possession of the latter as well as the constructive possession of the former were both terminated by the defendant. The only person whose possession was affected was really the landlord, for the tenant's interest terminated with his lease. At the time of suit the tenancy had ended and the landlord alone was the person deprived of possession by the defendant's wrongful act. To hold that the landlord in those circumstances was not entitled to bring the action would he to take away the right given by section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, in every case where the interest or the inclination of the tenant led him to decline to bring the action.

We agree with the case above cited which does not appear to have been cited before the learned Judge, and we reverse his decree and restore that of the District Munsif with costs.