DHIRENDRA NATH NEOGY Vs. SATYANARAYAN CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which "arises in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of our learned brother Bijayesh Mukherji J., relates to the status of the Defendant Appellant.

(2.) The Defendant Appellant was a tenant or lessee under the Plaintiffs -Respondents. The Plaintiffs -Respondents were recorded in respect of the disputed lands as occupancy raiyats in the Settlement Records. The Defendant, however, contended that, having regard to the nature of his tenancy or sub -tenancy or under -tenancy under the Plaintiffs, it was governed by the West Bengal Non -Agricultural Tenancy Act and not by the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(3.) This question was answered against the Defendant -Appellant and his above contention was overruled by our learned brother Bijayesh Mukherji J., relying principally upon the line of cases, starting from Babu Ram Roy v/s. Mahendra Nath Samanta (1904) 8 G.W.N. 454, which was accepted and affirmed by this Court on the principle of stare decision in Arun Kumar Sinha v/s. Durga Charan Basu, (1941) 45 C.W.N. 805 and, later on, again in Kinuram Sadhukhan v/s. Haji Mohammad Yusuf, (1958) 63 C.W.N. 939 although some criticism of the said decisions was made in Abdul Hossain v/s. Colour and Varnish Company Ltd., I.L.R. (1945) 2 Cal. 642 and Abdul Samad v/s. Jitoo Chaudhuri, I.L.R. (1950) 2 Cal. 268, where limitations were sought to be put on the principle, enunciated in the earliest of the above decisions, namely Babu Ram's case (1).