SURYA LALL KARAMKAR Vs. TULSI MODAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the lower appellate Ot. was right in granting the pltf. a decree for ejecting the deft. Surya Lall Karmakar, from a small piece of land located in Bhatta Bazar of the town of Purnea.

(2.) The pltf. Tulsi Modak brought the suit alleging that he had taken settlement of 1 kathas of land in Bhatta Bazar from Sm. Charusila Debi & that he had executed a registered Kabuliat dated 27-7 1914 for a period of five years from 1321 to 1326 Mulki Sambat. It was said that the pltf. held over after expiry of the term & had been paying rent to the sons of Charusila Debi after the latter's death. The deft. had taken settlement from the pltf. by a registered Kabuliat dated 1-5 1939 for a period of six years. After the expiry of the period of the lease the pltf. had asked the deft. to give up possession & had also served upon him a notice to quit. Since the deft. refused to give up possession pltf. brought the suit for a declaration of title & ejectment of the deft. from the land. The main ground of defence was that the kabuliat executed by the deft. was not given effect to & the document was inoperative. The deft. on the contrary, alleged that there was a special agreement between him & the pltf. according to which deft. agreed to pay rent direct to Janendra Nath Dey & his brothers who were the successors in interest of Sm. Charusila Debi. The deft. maintained that the pltf. had no title & that he ought not to be granted a decree for ejectment. The learned Munsif accepted the defence case & refused to grant decree to the pltf. The learned Dist. J. Purnea, reversed the decision of the Munsif in appeal holding that the pltf. was entitled to a decree for ejecting the deft. from the land in suit.

(3.) In support of this appeal Mr. Baidya Nath Jha submitted a twofold argument. In the first place he contended that no registered patta was executed by Sm. Charusila Debi in favour of the pltf. & in consequence the lease was invalid under Section 107, T. P. Aot. The learned counsel argued that the pltf. was a mere trespasser & cannot succeed in the suit for ejectment. In my opinion, this argument is untenable & cannot succeed. It has been found in the present case that in pursuance of the invalid lease the pltf. had obtained possession of the land & had continued to remain in possession till the date of the institution of the suit. It has also been found by the lower appellate Ct. that the pltf. had paid rent to the landlord for several years & had obtained rent receipts. Upon these facts it is manifest that the ratio of the case Alauddin Ahmad v. Aziz Ahmad, A.I.R. (21) 1934 Pat. 369, 148 I.C. 684) will apply & it must be held that the pltf. will be deemed to be a tenant from month to month under the provisions of Section 116, T. P. Act. In the case to which reference has been made the tenant remained in possession of the property under a verbal lease for six years & it was held by the Division Bench that a verbal lease for more than one year accompanied by delivery of possession was valid for the first year & if there was holding over on the part of the tenant he was estopped from denying the relationship of landlord & tenant & he cannot escape payment of rent for the period he was in occupation as tenant on the ground that the verbal lease was not binding as a lease for the period agreed upon. In the present case, therefore, it is plain that the pltf. had proved sufficient title to maintain the suit for ejectment of the deft. from the land.