NALINI KANTA GUMTIA Vs. MANMATHA NATH MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order for ejectment from land on the ground that the Petitioner, a bargadar, has contravened the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The only contravention which has been found by the appellate Court is that the Petitioner did not deliver owner's share of produce of pulses (kalai) grown in some of the plots which the bargadar held under the owner. The allegation of the owner was that there was contravention of the provision of the Act with reference to the delivery of the produce of the paddy. The authorities below have concurrently found that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Act with respect to the delivery of the share of paddy of the owner. Both the authorities below found that the owner made it impossible for the bargadar to deliver paddy within the period limited by law. Hence, that question does not arise for consideration.

(3.) With regard to pulses (kalai) the trial authority found that kalai was grown in the land, but there was a custom of remission for first three years of cultivation of a new crop. Kalai was cultivated as a new crop during the period in question. Therefore, the bhagchash officer held that there was a custom in the locality for remission and because of such custom there was no default, even if the share of the produce of pulses had not been delivered. The appellate authority, however, found that there was no case of custom made out by the bargadar or by any of his witnesses; there is no evidence relating to the custom as aforesaid. The appellate authority granted an order for eviction. Against that order the Petitioner has moved this Court.