BABULAL BANIA Vs. BASUDEB DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point requiring consideration, in this second appeal, is whether the learned munsif was right in refusing the defence prayer for stay of hearing of the suit, out of which this appeal arises and whether the decree passed by him in March, 1948, and the dismissal of the appeal therefrom by the learned subordinate Judge in February, 1949, are bad in law on account of such refusal.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and mesne profits brought by the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 against the Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant who were respectively Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the trial Court. Admittedly, the Plaintiff is the owner of the disputed land. Admittedly also, Defendant No. 1 Thakurani Dasi was, originally, a tenant under the Plaintiff in respect of the said land under a kabuliyat for a period of five years from Jaistha 1, 1339 B.S., to the end of Baisakh, 1343 B.S. After the expiry of the above term of five years Thakurani continued as a tenant at, what appears to be in effect, a reduced rental, and in or about the middle of Baisakh, 1352 B.S., corresponding to April, 1945, the Plaintiff served by registered post a notice to quit upon the tenant Thakurani asking for possession immediately on the expiry of Baisakh, 1352 B.S. On July 27, 1945, corresponding to Sraban, 1352 B.S., Defendant No. 1 Thakurani Dasi sold the huts on the disputed land to Defendant No. 2 Babulal, and on November 27, 1945, the present suit was instituted against the two Defendants claiming ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(3.) There were various defences raised in the two separate written statements filed by the two Defendants, and originally there were five issues framed, chief of which related to the validity and effect of the notice to quit and the service thereof. The learned munsif found all the above issues in favour of the Plaintiff and his decision was accepted and maintained by the lower appellate Court and nothing could be placed before me to induce me to come to a different conclusion or to justify interference with the findings of the Courts below on those issues in this second appeal.