SATADAL BASINI DASI Vs. LALIT MOHAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against a decree, passed by the learned trial Judge, allowing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment but granting the defendant three years' time or a grace period of three years' to vacate the suit property. F. A. No. 144 of 1960 is by the defendant, wherein she challenges the decree for ejectment. The other appeal (F. A. No. 97 of 1980) is by the plaintiff, who has felt aggrieved by the above provision for time or grace period in the decree of the court below. This latter appeal, however, has spent itself and become in fructuous as the grace period in question expired even before its hearing and the only order, which we need pass in this appeal, is to dismiss it on the said ground. F. A. No. 97 of 1960 is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. Turning, now to the defendant tenant's appeal, we may at once say that it involves a short question as to the defendant's status, namely, whether she is a thika tenant, entitled to protection under the Calcutta thika Tenancy Act. The relevant facts are not many and they may be briefly stated here as follows:

(2.) THE defendant was tenant under the plaintiff's father under a registered lease dated September, 26, 1929. That lease (Vide its certified copy Ext. B) was for twenty years, commencing from September 15, 1929. The rent reserved was Rs. 27/5/- per month @ Rs. 13/8/- per cotta per month on the total demised area of 2k-17 sq. feet. It also contained a renewal clause in the following terms:

(3.) THE parties fought grimly on the issue of ejectment, the main defence on this particular point being that the defendant was a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, which protected her from eviction. Obviously, if the defendant is a thika tenant under the above Act, the present action for ejectment must fail in view at least of Sec. 5 of the above Act, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of such ejectment with the Thika Tenancy Controller. The point, however, is whether the defendant's above claim of status is well-founded.