G H C ARIFF Vs. JADUNATH MAJUMDAR BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this suit the appellant sought to recover possession of a parcel of land from the respondent, upon an allegation that the respondent was a monthly tenant at will thereof, whose tenancy had been effectively determined before suit. The action was tried in the Court of the Munsif of Sealdah. He found in favour of the appellant, that a notice to quit had been duly served; hut ho also found, in favour of the respondent upon other issues, that the respondent was a permanent tenant and dismissed the suit. An appeal to the District Judge was dismissed. The relevant facts, as found in both these Courts, may be shortly stated.

(2.) In 1913 a verbal agreement was made between the appellant and respondent, for the grant to the respondent by the appellant of a permanent lease of a small parcel of land at a total rent of Rs. 80 per month. In anticipation of the execution of the lease the respondent was let; into possession in June 1913 and shortly thereafter he erected certain structures on the land with the knowledge and approval of the appellant. At some time in the course of the year 191-1 the parties seem to have agreed that the lease should be a lease for five years, renewable at the end of every period of five years. No lease was ever executed; but in October 1922 the appellant served upon the respondent a notice to quit, asserting that he was a monthly tenant, and requiring the premises to be vacated by 1 November 1922. This not being done, the suit was instituted in the month of April, 1923.

(3.) An appeal was preferred to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, which remitted the case to the District Judge in order to obtain findings of fact on two points, viz. : (1) whether the respondent had notice that performance of the verbal agreement of 1913 was refused by the appellant ; and (2) whether the structures which the respondent erected on the land shortly after 1913 involved such an outlay of money as would reasonably strike the appellant as being an assertion of a permanent right in the land on the part of the respondent, or as would reasonably call for objection from a landlord who never intended to grant a permanent lease.