JUTHIKA ROY Vs. SHANTI NATH PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is on behalf of the Plaintiff who claims to have acquired the status of a Bharatiya within the- meaning of Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and for an injunction restraining the Respondents, the superior landlords, from ejecting her in execution of an order obtained by her under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act II of 1949. Under Section 5 of the Thika Tenancy Act the landlords instituted a proceedings against the thika tenant and got an order for ejectment. The result of the order was that the structure vested in the landlords even though it was erected by the thika tenant. Under Section 10(2) of that Act any person, who is inducted into the land by the thika tenant, would become a Bharatiya and would have the status of a monthly tenant under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control; (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1948. The Plaintiff claims that advantage and that is why the Plaintiff instituted the present suit. The defence of the landlords was that, as the Plaintiff was not in actual possession but in constructive possession, by letting it out to some other Bharatiya she is not entitled to be protected. The trial court dismissed that suit and held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a declaration because she was not in actual possession but was in constructive possession. An appeal to the Appeal Court has also been dismissed and the present second appeal has been filed: against that decree. Two points have been urged before me. Section 10(2) of the Calcutta, Thika Tenancy Act is as follows:

(2.) The lessee may-even after the determination of the lease remove all' things which he has attached to the earth.

(3.) The next question is whether the fact that the Plaintiff Bharatiya is not in actual possession would make any difference in interpretation of Section 10(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. The word "Bharatiya" has been defined as follows: