RAMDHARI SARMA AND ANR. Vs. JOGENDRA KUMAR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal relates to a suit for ejectment, which was tiled by the plaintiffs -appellants. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the disputed land from one Musst. Forhtunnessa Begum on 2 -9 -1950 along with other lands. At the time of the purchase, the defendant is said to have been in occupation of the suit land measuring one katha, comprised in a part of Dag No. 3923, as a tenant under the vendor.

(2.) THE learned Munsiff decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the decision has been reversed by the learned Subordinate Judge resulting in the dismissal of the suit The learned Subordinate Judge concurs with most of the material findings of the learned Munsiff. He found, as did the learned Munsiff that there was no splitting up of the tenancy; that the area occupied by the defendant, which was only a part of Dag No. 3923, was one katha only; that there was good cause of action for the suit, as the defendant had refused to vacate the premises in spite of the repeated notices; and that the defendant was not protected under Section 5 of the Assam Act XII of 1955, because the structures on the land could not be regarded as permanent structures within the meaning of that section. The only point on which he differed and dismissed the suit is that the notice to quit was illegal. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of this question first before dealing with any other point in the case.

(3.) THE most serious contention on which the decree of the Court below is sought to be supported is on the amendment of the definition of permanent, structure in Section 3(d) of the Assam Act XII of 1955. It is argued that if the said definition is held to be retrospective as the principal Act is vide Harsukh Sarawgi v. Mashulal Khemani : AIR 1957 GAU 22, then the defendant is entitled to the protection of Section 5 of the said Act.