PRIYANATH GHOSE Vs. SURENDRA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Beachcroft in a suit for ejectment.

(2.) The controversy between the parties is limited to one question, namely, whether the disputed tenancy was or was not transferable. On the 2 January, 1872, the lands in suit were included in a mourasi mukarrari lease granted by one Digamber Pandit to Rap Chandra Das. It is not disputed that the tenancy so created was intended to be transferable. The tenancy was also permanent; in other words, heritable and not, held for a limited terra. The rent was fixed in perpetuity at Rs. 11. It appears that one Amar Nath Roy purchased the interest of Digamber Pandit at a sale for arrears of rent held at the instance of the superior landlords. The purchaser there after brought a suit for arrears of rent against the representatives of Rup Chandra Das on the allegation that by agreement of parties the rent had been fixed at Rs. 16 annually. On the 7 September 1876 a decree for rant was obtained by contend on this basis, The plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of Amarnath Roy: and the defendants have acquired the interest of the representatives of Rap Chandra Das by successive transfers, The plaintiffs contend that the tenancy purchased by the defendants was not transferable and that they are consequently liable to be ejected as trespassers. The Trial Court negatived this contention and dismissed the suit. The view so taken has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal below as also by Mr. Justice Beachcroft.

(3.) The appellants Lave not disputed and can-not dispute that the tenancy granted to Rup Chandra Das by Digamber Pundit was transferable. But they have argued that the tenancy ceased to exist when the representatives of Rup Chandra Das agreed to pay rent at an enhanced rate. They have also contended that if this position is not maintainable, the effect of the agreement to pay enhanced rent was to destroy the character of the tenancy as. a tenancy at a fixed rate of rent and consequently to destory its character as a transferable tenancy. In our opinion, there is no foundation for either branch of this contention.