BISHESHAR NATH Vs. KUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal came on originally for hearing before a single Judge of this Court. He was of opinion that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bilas Kunwar V/s. Desraj Ranjit Singh (1915) I.L.R. 37 All. 557 and of the decision in Pusa Mal V/s. Makdum Bakhsh (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 514, it was advisable that this case should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. It has consequently come before us for hearing.

(2.) After full argument it seems to me that the question referred to this Divisional Bench is really irrelevant, and I think the appeal can be disposed of on a short point.

(3.) The facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff was the lessor. He, by a lease dated the 19 of July, 1892, leased some premises to the father or predecessor of the defendants for a term of three years. At the expiry of the term, the lessees (or their representatives) remained on in possession until the date of suit which was brought on the 18 of June, 1919. The plaintiff asserted that the rent fixed by the lease had been regularly paid by the defendants until within three years of the date of suit.