Darling, S.M.
1. Nawab Mohammad Mustafa Husain Khan sues u/s 44 of the Tenancy Act for the ejectment of Mst. Bundi Begum and her sub-tenants from two plots Nos. 783 and 913, area 4 big has, 10 biswas, situated in village Behta Chauhan mahal Darobast of pargana Aonla in the Bareilly district, on the ground that the lady by her re-marriage has lost her occupancy rights in this holding. The Honorary Assistant Collector by an order dated the 28th March, 1936, dismissed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiff had continued to treat the Defendant lady as his tenant in spite of her re-marriage. In appeal the Collector of Bareilly, sitting with the powers of a Commissioner, reversed this decision by an order dated the 5th September, 1936: the Collector decreed the suit for the ejectment of the Defendants. Now Mst. Bundi Begum comes to the Board in second appeal.
2. Admittedly Mst. Bundi Begum contracted a fresh marriage with Raza Ali Khan in May, 1918. Till recently she had a co-widow Mst. Abadi Begum: on the latter''s death the re-marriage of the Appellant came to the notice of the zamindar, who is now asserting his rights by this suit for the closure of the occupancy tenancy. The Appellant, Mst. Bundi Begum claims that in point of fact the zamindar was fully aware of her re-marriage long before the death of her co-widow: having continued to treat her as a tenant of the holding he is debarred from seeking her ejectment as a trespasser on the score of her remarriage: this plea was accepted by the Assistant Collector, but has been rejected by the lower appellate Court. The only evidence in support of the plea that the zamindar had any knowledge of this re-marriage is that of a man called Banne Khan who claims to have been the zamindar''s Thanait and to have told the zamindar of this remarriage. The Manager of the estate, named Ahmad Hasan Khan, denies that this witness has ever been employed as a Thanait: this Manager is a man of standing: he happen to be the Government Pleader.
3. So long as the co-widow, Mst. Abadi Begum, was alive the occupancy tenancy continued to subsist notwithstanding the re-marriage of the present Appellant, Mst. Bundi Begum. Now that the co-widow has died the Plaintiff zamindar is entitled to assert his rights by treating Mst. Bundi Begum as a trespasser on the score of re-marriage which has recently come to his notice. There is no case for interference: the appeal is dismissed with costs including Rs. 10 for pleader''s fees in this Court.
