(1.) 1.The question in these two appeals is whether the defendant is a permanent tenant of the lands in dispute. The plaintiff is a purchaser from the family of the original landlord. His suit was to recover possession of the lands on the basis that the defendant was an annual tenant. According to the defendant he was a permanent tenant and his family was in possession for more than three quarters of a century on payment of the same rent. He also contended that he was a mirasi tenant under a patta and that therefore he could not be evicted. The material questions, therefore, were whether the defendant was proved to be a mirasi tenant or in any case a permanent tenant under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
(2.) SO far as the mirasi nature of the holding is concerned, both the Courts have found on the evidence that there was no grant or patta, and that therefore the defendant cannot be regarded as a mirasi tenant. That finding is not assailed before me.
(3.) MR. Desai contends that their Lordships intended to hold that satisfactory evidence of commencement did not mean commencement at some unknown date within a period of time however short but commencement at a definite time. Their Lordships disapproved of the decision in Narayan's case where twenty years were regarded as a reasonably short period from which origin could be inferred, and the observation that that view failed to give effect to the ordinary meaning of the language of the clause would show that in their Lordships' opinion what was required to be proved was the date of the commencement and not merely a period between two dates or years. Narayan's case, which was regarded as a leading case on this point, has been referred to expressly by their Lordships and the view taken in that case has been dissented from. At two places their Lordships observe that by commencement of tenancy was meant the date of its commencement. I think there is force in this contention and it seems to me that their Lordships meant to settle this point by holding that a definite date or year must be proved for the purpose of proving commencement. I do not think that their Lordships meant by date the exact day of the origin of the tenancy but at least the year of its origin, because in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the date could be presumed under the first paragraph of Section 84 of the Bombay Land Revenue-Code.