JAJNESWAR NATH Vs. JARMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an ejectment suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. The order was affirmed in appeal. Plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

(2.) The only live issue which requires determination at this stage of the case is whether the defendant is liable to ejectment. The trial Court, found that the defendant had been in possession of the property for about 27 years before suit. Plaintiff could eject him only if he could satisfy the Court that he required the land for building: his homestead or for cultivation by himself or by members of his family or by hired servants or labourers according to the proviso to Sec. 33 of the (Temporarily-Settled Districts) Tenancy Act. The learned Judge inspected the present homestead of the plaintiff and found that plaintiff had lands on the East and West of it. He had two other vacant homesteads also. On his own showing he had about 8 to 10 kears of land though, according to p. w.3, the area owned by him would measure about 20 kears of land. On these facts, the learned Judge held that he was not satisfied that plaintiff requires the land for his homestead. He further found that plaintiff was living in his present homestead with three other co-sharers and might be finding it inconvenient, but more inconvenience and hardship would be caused to defendant l if he was evicted from the disputed land. In consequence, the finding arrived at was that defendant 1 was not liable to ejectment. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal could not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the trial Court on the basis of evidence and local inspection.

(3.) It appears to me that the proviso to Sec. 33 has been completely misunderstood by the Courts below. The learned Munsif went to see the existing homestead of the plaintiff and observed that besides the homestead occupied by him, he had other homesteads. He had also other land and though there were co-sharers occupying the homesteads on the land where his homestead is now situate, inconvenience that may result from it would be much less than that caused to defendant by his eviction. The point obviously has-been decided more on a balance of convenience. The possible inconvenience or hardship to the defendant seems to have influenced the decision to a considerable extent. The local inquiry appears to have been confined to the plaintiff's needs for residential accommodation. The allegation of the plaintiff that he required the land for cultivation entirely escaped the attention of the Courts below.