LALIT MOHAN DEY Vs. SATADALBASINI DASI

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 1960) 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 infructuous 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.

(2.) 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 aren't many and they may be briefly stated here as follows:

(3.) It is the plaintiff's case that the lessee exercised her above option of renewal and paid the enhanced rent of Rs.30-5-9p. per month at the above enhanced rate of Rs. 15/- per cottah per month and remained in possession. The lessee, however, did not quit possession on the expiry of the said renewal or renewed period, notwithstanding plaintiff's demand for possession, and, accordingly, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 15th September, 1958, for ejectment and mesne profits, of which, however, the latter claim was withdrawn by the plaintiff in course of the suit with leave to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action, if not otherwise barred.