TELAM PRAMANIK Vs. ADU SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the dismissal by the lower Appellate Court of a suit for the recovery of possession of an agricultural holding. The original plaintiff and defendant each claimed under a registered permanent sub-lease granted by the tenant, Chandra Kant Majumdar. The learned Sub-Judge in the Court of Appeal below held that, regard being had to the provisions of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, such a sub- lease was void and conferred no title: whence it followed that the plaintiff could not succeed in ejectment against a person in the advantageous position of a defendant in possession.

(2.) It is not without reluctance that I have arrived at the conclusion that this decision is right: and I say so for two reasons. In the first place, I have already joined, after argument, in a decidedly expressed opinion to the contrary--see Abdul Karim, Patwari v. Abdul Rahman 16 C.W.N. 618; 15 C.L.J. 672; 13 Ind. Cas. 364: while, in the second, it seems to me that justice, equity and good conscience are on the side of that contrary opinion, and I would not, if I could avoid it, agree to the construction of an enactment of the Legislature which enables a lessor to go behind and evade the terms of his own lease.

(3.) In the circumstances, I must be excused for going into the matter rather more fully than I otherwise should.