TAMIJUDDI Vs. ASGAR HOWLADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute as to the facts of this case. The defendant No. 2 is the superior landlord. The defendant No. 1 holds a plot of land under him. This plot is a portion of a holding held at one time by a raiyat Arman Howladar under the defendant No. 2. In 1889 Arman Howladar granted a lease of it along with other plots of land to the plaintiff. The lease was one from year to year it was not permanent or for a term of years. The defendant No. 2 dispossessed the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is still in possession of other plots, which he holds under Arman. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of this plot, on the ground that he was at least a tenant from year to year under Arman and that the defendants had no right to dispossess him.

(2.) On these facts the Munsiff held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and gave him a decree for possession. The" lower Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that under Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the lease granted by Arman to the plaintiff was void. The lower Court has also held that the plaintiff had no title to rely on in a suit for recovery of possession.

(3.) It has, however, been found that the interest of Arman, as that of a raiyat, has not been put an end to. The plaintiff was paying to Arman the rent, which he was bound to pay under the lease of 1889, and Arman himself was paying rent to the second defendant. We do not see how we can come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no title to sue for possession of the plot in dispute. He was, under the terms of the lease to him, a tenant from year to year, and, even if the lease was void for certain purposes, it could not be held to be void against his own landlord Arman and, as long as Arman's interest is not put an end to, the defendant No. 2 has no right to eject the plaintiff, who is not his raiyat.