GAYA PRASAD SINGH Vs. JAGADISH CHANDRA DEO DHABALDEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by a landlord to eject an occupancy raiyat on the ground that the tenant has used the land comprised in his agricultural holding in a manner not authorized by Section 21, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The manner in which the tenant is found to have offended is by the erection of huts on agricultural land. The facts were that the land was settled with the defendants in 1924. In April 1932, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had begun to construct huts in two of the plots, namely Nos. 63 and 64. A notice to quit was served upon them on 30 April of that year, and on 3 July 1933, the present suit was instituted. The litigation has had a chequered career, having been up to this Court once before when it was necessary to remit an issue as to whether the defendants had constructed any huts on the land in 1932 according to the averment made in the plaint.

(2.) It has now been found as a fact that the huts erected on plots Nos. 63 and 64 were constructed before 1930, but that in 1932 the defendants commenced the construction of other huts which were, however, pulled down when objection was raised by the municipality. The Court below has also found that the defendants have erected more huts while this litigation was pending. "We are not concerned with the rights of the parties in respect of those huts.

(3.) The question of law which arises in the present appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. On behalf of the defendant-appellant, it is contended that as the finding now is that all the huts with which we are concerned in this appeal were erected more than two years prior to the institution of the suit, the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. That Section provides, for suits for the ejectment of an occupancy raiyat for using his land in a manner not sanctioned by Section 22, a period of two years from the date of misuse of the land. On behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, it is contended that the misuse is a continuing wrong and that the suit is within time until within two years from the date when the misuse ceases.