KANSAR ALI Vs. SAUKAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A single point was urged in support of this Rule, namely, that opposite party, landlords or the Bargadar petitioner were not entitled to claim eviction of the Bargadar petitioner on the ground that he had failed to deliver share of the produce to landlords opposite party and also claim share of the produce, which the Bargadar had defaulted to deliver and that having had elected to claim share of the produce, the landlords must be deemed to have waived the claim for eviction.

(2.) The circumstances under which this Rule was issued are hereinafter recounted in brief. The opposite party landlords filed B.C. Case No. 242K of 1959, before the Bhag Chas Officer, Keshpur, claiming share of Bhag Produce, for the years 1360 and 1365 B.S., from the petitioner. They also filed B.C. Case No. 66K of 1959, before the same Bhag Chas Officer, claiming eviction of the petitioner from the land cultivated by him, on the threefold ground of (i) default in delivering share of produce (ii) negligence in cultivation and (iii) bonafide requirement for bringing the land under their personal cultivation. The Bhag Chas Officer heard both the cases analogously and awarded share of produce to the landlords opposite party for the years 1363 to 1365 B.S. only, holding that the rest of the claim was barred by limitation. He also passed an order for eviction of the petitioner from the land on the ground that he had contravened the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, by his failure to deliver the share of the produce to the landlords opposite party. Against the award made by the Bhag Chas Officer in the two cases, the petitioner Bargader filed two appeals before the learned Munsif at Garbeta. The landlord opposite party also filed an appeal before the same learned Munsif against so much of their claim as was dismissed by the Bhag Chas Officer. The learned Munsif heard the appeals analogously and by his judgment, dated July 18, 1961, dismissed both the appeals preferred by the Bargadar but partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlords opposite party, holding, inter alia, that the claim for share of produce for the year 1362 B.S. was not barred by limitation.

(3.) The petitioner Bargadar moved this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the dismissal of his appeals and obtained this Rule.