Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. A zamindar cannot put an end to the relation of landlord and tenant, except in the manner provided by law, and it is apparent that, in this case, nothing was done by the zamindar to determine the tenancy. The zamindar, however, alleges that the tenancy was determined by the act of the tenant himself. The merely allowing the land to be waste would not of itself, determine the tenancy. Such procedure on the part of a tenant would, under some circumstances, be evidence of an intention to abandon the holding; under others, it would prove no such intention : for instance, in a season of drought, it would be idle for a tenant to attempt to put a crop into the ground. If then the appellant as purchaser, acquired the tenant's right, it must be determined whether he has put an end to the tenancy, or deprived himself of his right to recover possession.
2. The District Judge is requested to try the following issues upon the evidence already recorded, and upon such further evidence as the parties may adduce, and to return his finding thereon, together with the evidence, to this Court, within four weeks from the date of receiving this order, when ten days will be allowed for filing objections:
(1) Are the holdings of tenants in the zamindari transferable without the zamindar's consent ?
(2) Was the holding abandoned by the appellant ?
(3) Did the appellant refrain from informing the respondents of his sale-deed, and of his intention to insist thereon and thereby induce them to alter their position.