SAHADOKA MUDIALI Vs. NABIN CHAND BORAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A demand for rent from tenants, to the under-tenure-holder s knowledge may amount to notice.

(2.) There are decrees which were obtained by the purchaser before the present rent suits were brought viz., on 3rd August 1909. In Clause (4) of Section 37 Act XT of 1859, the words " have been made" indicates (in the use of the present perfect tense) that they must be in existence at the time of sale; the right accrues at the time of the sale when the protection is claimed.

(3.) It is the existence of that class of improvements that gives the protection. The land in question being busti land does not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 37 of the Land Revenue Sale Act: Sagore Hath Base v. Rakhal Dasi Debi (1910) 7 Ind 912. These huts do not come within the description of dwelling-houses, which must be of a permanent nature to claim this protection; Makar Ali v. Shiyam Charan Das (1898) 3 C. W. N. 212. All the cases proceed on the assumption that the existing state of things is a. garden and not that it has been a garden.