This is a revenue appeal under the provisions of S. 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, directed against an order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, dated 10-4-1951, by which he disallowed the prayer of the appellant claiming that the house in his possession is not liable to be de­molished. (2) The learned D. C., in disposing of the claim of the appellant, namely, that the house in his possession is not liable to be demolished, took the view that the appellant should have come at an earlier stage of the proceedings with his claim, presumably mean­ing that he should have come before the per­fect partition was made. From the order of the learned D.C., it appears that he was under the impression that S. 116-A of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was in some way or other involved, for, he says: "It appears that Bonomali is claiming now to be a tenant and, as such, claims protection under Section 116-A not being a proprietor or landholder. It is a fact that Bonomali has been made a party to this perfect partition case and at no stage before he filed an ob­jection." The learned Deputy Commissioner appears to think that for the purpose of applying S. 110 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, it is the duty of one of the co-sharers, among whom perfect partition is proposed to be made, to claim the protection of S. 110 of the Regula­tion. This, in my opinion, is an erroneous view. S. 110 of the Regulation is in these terms: "110. (1) If, in making a partition, it is necessary to include in the estate assigned to one sharer the land occupied by a dwelling house or other building in the possession of another co-sharer, that other co-sharer shall be allowed to retain it with any buildings thereon, on condition of his paying a reason­able ground rent for it to the sharer into whose portion it may fall." Clearly the opening lines "if, in making a parti­tion it is necessary etc", imply that the duties which have to be performed under the provi­sions of S. 110 of the Regulation are the duties to be performed by the authority making the partition. "S. 110 does not in terms say that an objection or claim should be made by one of the parties before the terms of S. 110 of the Regulation can be attracted. (3) It is to be observed that the house in the occupation of Bonomali has been ordered by the terms of the perfect partition to be deliver­ed to the Opposite Party and by a subsequent order jt has been ordered to be demolished, under the terms of S. 110 of the Regulation the property in the possession of Bonomali could not be ordered to be demolished; all that could be ordered was to allow Bonomali to retain possession of the house in his occupation on con­dition that he pays a reasonable ground-rent to the Opposite Party to whose share the house has fallen. It seems to me that the learned D.C., did not apply his mind at the time of making the perfect partition, to the terms of S. 110 of the Regulation, Undoubtedly the fact that Bonomali was in possession of the house in question which has been ordered to be demolished, was before the learned D.C., on the face of the proceedings. It was then his duty to act in accordance with S. 110 of the Regulation. His order, therefore, ordering the house to be demolished is clearly contrary to the provisions of S. 110 of the Regulation and must be set aside. (4) The result is that the perfect partition made by the learned D.C., will remain, but the order will be modified in these terms: That Bonomali shall be allowed to retain the house in his possession on condition of his paying a reasonable ground rent to the Opposite Party. (5) The appeal is allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs. (6) The connected Rule is made absolute. Order modified.