MOHIMA CHUNDER SHAHA Vs. HAZARI PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are cultivating ryots who were placed on this property by the Collector and have held possession for many years, but not for a sufficient period to create a right of occupancy, they are therefore of the class termed in the Bengal Tenancy Act "non-occupancy ryots." The plaintiffs in a suit against Government have succeeded in proving their title to the land.

(2.) The matter for our decision is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendants, non-occupancy ryots, as having no right to hold the lands because the Government from whom they de-rived their title had no right and title itself, and no relationship of landlord and tenant has ever existed between the plaintiff's and defendants by recognition of their right to cultivate by receipt of rent.

(3.) In order to establish the right of defendants as non-occupancy ryots under the Bengal Tenancy Act and as such not liable to ejectment except under its special provisions (none of which admittedly apply to this case), it becomes necessary to determine whether they are non-occupancy ryots as therein defined.