REAJUDDIN PATWARI Vs. SYED ABDUL JOBBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from certain lands on the allegation that he is entitled to possession of those lands by virtue of an ijara lease obtained from the eight annas proprietor in 1318 B.S. The defendants, who are the appellants in this Court, were the dar ijaradars of the village in which the lands are situate from the year 1866 and their dar ijara lease terminated some time in the year 1910. During the period they were in possession of the village as dar ijaradars they entered into occupation of the lands in suit and after the termination of the lease they continued in possession of these lands, and the plaintiff alleged that they held these lands without any title and are, therefore, liable to ejectment as these lands are included within his eight annas share of the ijara. The defendants amongst other things pleaded that they were entitled to hold these lands as raiyats and were not liable to ejectment having obtained possession of these lands by virtue of purchase of the holdings of raiyats under them in execution of decrees for rent. The plaintiff in the alternative made a prayer for assessment of a fair and equitable rent under Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) The Court of first instance declared the plaintiff's ijara right to the eight annas share of the village and declared that the plaintiff would get rent of the lands in respect of his share, holding that the defendants were the tenants with regard to these lands. There were appeals by both parties against the decision of the trial Court. The plaintiff appealed against the order fixing a fair and equitable rent under Section 157 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the defendants appealed against the decree declaring the right of the plaintiff to the property in suit. The learned Judge in the Court below dismissed both the appeals.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contend in this Court that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable having regard to Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act as they were tenants on the land, and the plaintiff was only the owner of a share of the landlord's interest. The decision of the question depends upon the fact as to whether the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiff or not. It was contended by the appellants that after the expiry of the dar-ijara in 1910 it should be considered that they were holding over and consequently they were tenants of the plaintiff. But it is quite clear that they did not remain in possession either by virtue of any arrangement with the plaintiff or with his assent and it cannot; therefore; be said that they were holding over.