DIGENDRA CHANDRA PAL Vs. RADHA BALLAV PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an ejectment suit. Plaintiff's claim for ejectment was decreed. Defendant's appeal was dismissed. He has appealed to this Court.

(2.) THE decree is challenged only on the ground that the appellant was not liable to ejectment as he had acquired occupancy rights in the property in suit. The findings arrived at against the appellant on other points are not challenged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings arrived at by the learned Judge. He has only contended that defendant -appellant had acquired occupancy rights, under Section 4, Sylhet Non -agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act by twelve years' continuous possession of the property before suit. The Courts below have given no finding on this point, though the status of an occupancy tenant was claimed by the defendant in his written statement. The point was covered by issue No. 3 in the case. It seems that the plea was not pressed in the trial Court. The point was expressly raised in the Memo of Appeal, but the lower appellate Court also has not recorded any finding on it. The question, therefore, has to be decided. It is a simple question of fact, and a remand for its decision to the lower appellate Court is not necessary. The evidence bearing on the point is extremely meagre. The defendant alone appeared in the, witness -box to support his, claim. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced in support of the claim. (After stating the evidence of the defendant the judgment proceeds :)