AMIYA BALA DEBI Vs. CHITRALEKHA CHOUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Plaintiff is the Appellant. She filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant on August 12, 1948, after she had served a notice to quit. It is not necessary for our present purpose to refer to any other matter except whether the tenancy was a permanent one and whether the Plaintiff has any right to eject the Defendant. The other points have been held in favour of the Plaintiff.

(2.) The tenancy is not governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. The purpose of tenancy is not agricultural; but we find that the purpose was other than agricultural and would include the purpose of residence therein. But there never has/been any pucca structure on the property. The original landlords are not parties to the suit. They have transferred their interest in the property to the Plaintiff. The original tenant, who was inducted into possession, is not also before us. The original tenant's son transferred the property in 1890 and, thereafter, there has been successive transfers. It is also clear that there has been no enhancement of rent,. It is further to be observed that the deed of transfer recites as follows:

(3.) In my opinion, the approach to these cases with respect to properties, which are governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, must be different from the approach that is to be made when the tenancy is not one governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act but is one which would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Various tests have been laid down as to determine under what circumstances the tenancy is to be considered to be of a permanent nature and when not. So far as the test relating to pucca structure, there has been no pucca structure and, therefore, that question does not arise in this case.