SUDHANGSHU KUMAR DEB Vs. SURENDRA GOSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for determination in this second appeal is whether the defendants are tenants holding over on expiry of the lease for fixed period.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case may be stated as follows : Shyam Charan Deb took registered lease of the suit land measuring 1 B 15 K in Mouza-Ambikapur Part II Paragana Barakpur, District-Cachar, from Sibaran Gosai on 10.3.1950 for a fixed period of 10 years on annual rent of Rs. 30/- and resided there by constructing a house. The lease was renewable on expiry of the period. Before expiry of the period of the lease, Shyam Charan Deb died. The defendants, who are his legal heirs, continued in occupation. The lessor Sibaran Gosai also died, in (sic)61 and his son, the plaintiff, became owner of the suit land. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants did not pay rent to him from 1373 BS onwards. On that allegation the plaintiff served notice on the defendants terminating the tenancy and filed a suit on 16.6.1979 for getting khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants.

(3.) BOTH sides examined witnesses. Exhibit-1 was the registered lease dated 10.3.1950 which expired on 9.3.1960. On evidence, the learned Munsif No. 4 Silchar, who tried the suit, found that after expiry of the lease there was no renewal and the defendants neither paid any rent to the plaintiff. So, he held that tenancy stood determined on expiry of the lease in 1960 and that the possession of the defendants became adverse from that year. Thus he dismissed the suit (filed in 1979) as being barred by Schedule 67 of the Limitation Act. On appeal, the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 2, Silchar, also found that after 1960 there was no renewal and the defendants did not pay any rent. However, he held that on expiry of the lease, determination of the tenancy should be confirmed either by landlord or the tenant. As this was not done he held that the defendants continued as tenants by holding over under Section 1(sic)6 of the T.P. Act and their possession was not adverse to the plaintiff. Accordingly, he reversed the dismissal and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.