BAIKUNTHA NATH GHATAK Vs. SHEIKH FAZIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this case is whether the suit is barred by the special limitation contained in Art. 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) The dispossession admittedly took place two years before the suit, but the Court below overruled the objection as to special limitation on the ground that the relation of landlord and tenant is not admitted on any side.

(3.) The applicability of the special limitation does not depend upon the admission of the parties. It must, however, be shown that there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The land is owned by the defendant No. 1 as part of his putni taluk, and it appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that there was a compromise decree te which both the plaintiffs and the defendants were parties. Under the terms of that compromise the defendant No, i was to realise rent from the tenants of his putni taluk. That being so, there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and dispossession having taken place more than two years before the institution of the suit, the case would some under Art. 3, Schedule III.