BINAPANI DEVI Vs. SURENDRA NATH HALDAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and arises oat of Title Suit No. 20 of 1944. The plaintiff had brought the suit on the plea that the defendant had taken settlement of the tank in suit for three years from Agrahayan 1346 B. S. to Jaista 1349 B. S. after executing a kabuliyat. After the expiry of the lease the defendant had continued in possession, though the plaintiff had not assented to such possession. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, is a trespasser and the prayer is for an ejectment from the demised property. The defence raised various points but the one material for the purpose of the present appeal is that the tenant had paid rent up to 1350 B.S. and that there had been a further agreement by the landlord accepting fresh tenancy after the expiry of the lease in Jaistha, 1349 B. S.

(2.) Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge has on a consideration of the evidence--oral and documentary--arrived at a finding of fact that Exs. B-20 and B-21 being dakhilas issued by and on behalf of the plaintiff were genuine and that the plaintiff by acceptance of rent up to 1350 B.S., as evidenced by those dakhilas, permitted the defendant to hold over. This decision is by itself sufficient to dispose of the suit as framed. It is not the case on behalf of the plaintiff that she had given notice terminating the tenancy when the tenant was holding over after the expiry of the lease in 1340 B.S. In this view the suit has to be dismissed and the appeal also dismissed.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has gone into other questions as well which are not necessary for the disposal of the suit. What the nature of the tenancy is after the expiry of the lease in Jaista, 1349 B. S. need not be examined in the present suit. It is also not necessary to consider what is the legal effect of the lease evidenced by EX. E in the case. These are questions which may arise hereafter when steps are taken, if any, to terminate the tenancy which the defendant has got by holding over and the findings arrived at, except on the question that there was acceptance of rent by the plaintiff up to 1350 B.S., are therefore set aside as being unnecessary.