SUDHIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession, mesne profits, demolition of the structures built upon the suit property and an injunction. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant No I has no existing interest in the land and that on the 5-8-1948 the defendant No. 1 wrongfully trespassed upon the land and thereafter has constructed some temporary structures thereon. The defendant No. 1 alleges that he has taken settlement of the suit land from the plaintiffs in Magh 1354 B.S. at an annual rent of Rs. 5/- and has thereafter constructed pucca structures with brick walls and tiled roof thereon with the knowledge and consent of and without any objection from the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 claims that the plaintiffs have no right to eject him and that in the alternative and in case the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to a decree for ejectment, the defendant No. 1 should be given a decree for the sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of compensation for the value of the structures.

(2.) Both courts have concurrently found that In Magh 1354 B. S. the plaintiffs granted an oral lease of the property to the defendant No. 1 at a yearly rent of Rs. 5/- and that the plaintiffs allowed the defendant No. 1 to raise permanent structures on the land. On this finding both courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This finding Is amply supported by the evidence on the record and is not now challenged. I agree with the finding.

(3.) With regard to the validity of the lease the trial court held that the lease even though invalid as a bemeadi lease was a valid lease for one year and that the suit being brought within one year from Magh 1354 B. S. When the lease was granted, the suit was liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiffs having let the land to defendant No. 1 and allowed him to erect pucca structures on the land are not entitled to sue him in ejectment. I am unable to agree either with the trial court or with the lower appellate court on this point.