RUDRA NARAYAN DEB Vs. CHINTARAM HAZARIKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for khas possession of the land in dispute. The suit was decreed in the trail Ct. was reversed & the suit dismissed on the ground that no valid notice of ejectment had been given to the defts. The pltf. has assailed the correctness of the appellate decree by a second appeal to this Ct.

(2.) PLTF .'s case is that deft. 1, who is a pleader's clerk, used to do his work in connection with his cases pending in Cts. & he used to utilize numerate him for the work that he was doing, pltf. agreed to given him the land in dispute for cultivation. He was to remain in his possession in lieu of services that he was to render to the pltf. In pursuance of this arrangement the land was delivered to the deft free of rent for purposes of cultivation. Sometime after the deft had remained in possession of the land, pltf. in formed him that he will have his work done, by other petn -writers & that he shall deliver, back the land to him in the month of Magh. He also sent to the deft a registered notice demanding delivery of possession within 7 days.

(3.) IN this appeal, the learned Counsel for the pltf. has contended that deft was not a tenant at all & therefore no question of any notice arose either under the Tenancy Act or under the general principles of law. The basis of his argument is that where land is given in lieu of services to be rendered, it is an arrangement which cannot be regarded as amounting to a tenancy.