GANESH CHANDRA PAL Vs. CHANDRAMOHAN DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff's case is that he is a raiyat and the principal defendants held under him as under-raiyats. In 1907 the plaintiff brought a suit for the ejectment of the defendants after notice under Section 49 (a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That suit ended in a compromise.

(2.) The only question in this appeal is what is the proper interpretation of the decree passed embodying that compromise. Admittedly the plaintiff has served no fresh notice on the defendants before the institution of this suit. He can only eject the defendants if Clause (a) of Section 49 is applicable, that is to say, on the expiration of the term of a lease. In other words the plaintiff's case depends on whether the effect of the solenamah decree was that of a written lease for a term of years. The main provisions of the solenamah are that the defendant No. 1 shall pay at the end of each 9 years a selami of Rs. 44 if he cultivates pan by other people and a selami of Rs. 22 if he or his sons or grandsons, etc., cultivate pan themselves. It further stipulates that if the defendant does not comply with the stipulation, that is, if ha makes default in the payment of selami the plaintiff will be entitled to eject the defendant from the jote and to get khas possession of the lands in suit. In the deed of compromise itself there is no reference to any renewal of lease.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant reliance is placed on the words "and on payment of such money shall enjoy the lands. I am unable to accept the contention that the effect of this solenamah decree was that of a written lease for a term within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 49. It is true, as it has been contended, that the parties might have compromised the former suit legally by arranging that the defendant should have lease as an under-raiyat for a term of 9 years with the option of renewal at the end thereof on payment of selami. But I am unable to hold that that was the actual effect of the compromise into which they entered. That being so since the defendant did not bold under a lease the term of which has expired and as there has been no notice to quit served upon him he is not liable to be ejected.