ADHIR KUMAR HAJRA Vs. KANAI LAL CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of importance which has been raised in this appeal and which is a question of law is what would he the status of an- under-lessee from a raiyat whose holding was governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act and who granted a non-agricultural sub-lease of a portion of his holding to the under-lessee when the Bengal Tenancy Act was in full operation before its almost whole-sale repeal by the Land Reforms Act of 1955. Incidental to this question and also as an integral part of it, a further question has arisen, namely, what would be the determining factor in such a case-the nature of the original tenancy or the character of the parcel or parcels included in the sub-tenancy for deciding whether the sublease would be governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act or the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate how this controversial question of law has arisen it is necessary to state the following facts about; which there is no dispute. One Gostha Behari Hajra, the original Plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and who has been substituted by his heirs, the present Appellants, granted a lease of the disputed land measuring- six cottas to Respondent Kanai Lal Chatterjee who was Defendant in the Trial Court. The lease was granted on Jaistha 9, 1346 B.S., reserving an annual rent of Rs. 12. The land is situate in Mouja Bil Jaipur and admittedly Gostha Behari had the interest of a raiyat in this land which was portion of a bigger raiyati holding. The lease was given for a term of nine years which was. due to expire with the end of Baisakh, 1355 B.S. the corresponding English date being May 14, 1948. There was a clause for renewal of the lease for a similar term if the lessee so desired. The lessee did not give up possession of the demised land on the expiry of the original term of the lease. On the basis of the above admitted facts, Gostha Behari instituted the present suit for ejectment against the Defendant on November 16, 1948, contending that the Defendant was not entitled to possess the land, because the term of the. lease had expired and the option for renewal had not been exercised by him.

(3.) The defence was that the Defendant was an under-raiyat, and the suit having been brought more than six months after the expiry of the term of the lease was barred by limitation under Article 1(a) of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was further contended oh behalf of the Defendant that he had duly exercised the option for renewal of the lease and so the claim of the Plaintiff for ejectment was premature.