Judgment 1. THIS Rule is against order No. 45 dated July 19, 1974 granting a stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner under section 51c of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955, as amended. 2. THE plaintiff instituted a suit on December 9, 1970, for declaration of his title to 'ka' schedule lands of the plaint which, it was stated, were his retained properties and also for permanent injunction restraining the State of west Bengal from interfering with his possession thereof. The case was that 'ka' schedule lands of the plaint never belonged to the plaintiff and they were never retained by him though 'ka' schedule lands were retained by him by filing 'b' Form which was allowed by the Revenue Officer, Raigunj. The Revenue Officer, however, illegally treated 'ka' schedule lands as retained lands of the petitioner and the impugned order was passed vesting 'ka' schedule lands in the State. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for declaration of his title to 'ka' schedule lands as retained lands, further for declaration that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the 'ka' schedule lands and also that the proceeding before the Revenue Officer, raigunj under section 6 (5) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and order vesting 'ka' schedule lands were void. The State of West Bengal contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein it was stated that an area of 2. 42 acres of 'ka' schedule lands was transferred by the plaintiff by a post-vesting kobala dated July 22, 1957 and the said lands were taken into consideration in adjustment of the ceiling of retained lands. As the plaintiff declined to surrender the above quantity of land, the same has been deducted from his retained land and vested in the State and the record of-rights had been framed accordingly. 3. THE learned Munsiff on the application of the State passed the following order : "ordered that the hearing of the suit be stayed under section 51c of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, pending revision of records of rights." This Rule, as already stated, is against this order. 4. THE question now is whether the decision in the suit involve a consideration of the revenue or incidents of any tenancy to which the records-of-rights relate. 4. THE question now is whether the decision in the suit involve a consideration of the revenue or incidents of any tenancy to which the records-of-rights relate. If so, under section 51c, the suit has to be stayed and, thereafter, the suit is to abate on the final publication of record-in-right or on the expiry of the period prescribed for appeal under section 51a or, when such an appeal has been filed, after its disposal. In Manmotha Nath Koyal v. Hazi Sk. Khayer Ali and ors. 66 C. W. N. 121, the court was considering section 46 (as it stood then) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, the provisions whereof are in pari material with those of section 51c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It was observed as follows : ". . . . . . the test is to find out whether in the proceeding in question before the civil court, the matters in issue involve or comprise the question of determination of rent or the incidents of any tenancy or the status of any tenant-mark in particular the use of the indefinite and indifferent adjective 'any' - and once this test is satisfied, the suit or proceeding concerned must be stayed." 5. 'INCIDENTS' means something attaching as burden or privilege to an office, position or right. In cases like the one before us, 'INCIDENTS' include rights and obligations attaching to the tenancy to which the record-of-rights relates. When the existence of a tenancy is disputed, such dispute in its turn will involve the determination of the basic question as to the creation of tenancy with the INCIDENTS and rent or revenue and as also the continuation or extinguishment of the tenancy. There may also be cases when the question of INCIDENTS of a tenancy or its rent, are directly and indirectly involved. In all such cases, provisions of Section 51c as it appears, will be attracted. But determination as to whether the tenancy belongs to one person or another when there is no dispute as to the existence of the tenancy and its INCIDENTS and rents, may be outside the controversy about the revenue or INCIDENTS of such tenancy and thus of section 51c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. But determination as to whether the tenancy belongs to one person or another when there is no dispute as to the existence of the tenancy and its INCIDENTS and rents, may be outside the controversy about the revenue or INCIDENTS of such tenancy and thus of section 51c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. At the same time, the determination of the existence or continuance of a tenancy when such tenancy is disputed necessarily involves further questions as to its INCIDENTS or rent. 6. IN the case before us, the plaintiff is disclaiming his interest in 'ka' schedule lands while according to the defendant, the tenancy belonged to the plaintiff and subsisted on the date of vesting and was liable to be taken into account for considering the quantum of land the plaintiff would be entitled to retain notwithstanding his post-vesting kobala in respect of such land as alleged. There is no question here of the existence of the tenancy of 'ka' or 'ka' schedule lands or their incidents or rent being in dispute. Only question involved is whether the lands of 'ka' schedule belonged to the plaintiff on the date of vesting and, if so, the legal consequences thereof. This, in my opinion, does not involve a determination of the incidents of any tenancy or its rent so as to attract section 51c of the Act. Accordingly, the order for stay of the suit cannot be sustained. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records go down at once for enabling the trial court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.