SATISH CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. DEBENDRA NATH DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by which the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendant No. 1 from two plots of land adjoining one another, the bigger one covering an area of 2 bighas 13 cottas 10 chittaks and the smaller one an area of 11 cottas 15 chittaks upon the allegation that the defendant No. 1 had purchased the said two holdings without the knowledge and consent of the landlord from whom the plaintiff has taken mourashi mokarrari settlement of the holdings. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif and decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 has appealed to this Court. It will be convenient to summarise his contentions with reference to the two holdings separately. As to the bigger jama it is contended: 1st.-That the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the tenancy was for horticultural purposes where as he should have held that it was for residential purposes. 2nd.-If it was for residential purposes, then under the general law of the land as it stood before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation, or under the Transfer of Property Act itself, by one or other of which it must be governed, according as it is found as to when it came into existence, it is transferable, and so the defendant No. 1 has acquired a valid right and is not electable. 3rd.-Assuming that it was for horticultural purposes and it is governed by the Rent law as it stood before the Bengal Tenancy Act or by the Bengal Tenancy Act itself, the incidents, judged by these provisions, showed that the predecessors of the defendant No. 1 had acquired a permanent and transferable right therein, and so the defendant No. 1 is not liable to be ejected.

(3.) As for the smaller jama the contentions are as follows: 1st.- It should have been held that the tenancy was for residential purposes and not for purposes of horticulture as has been erroneously found by the learned Subordinate Judge. 2nd.-That if it was for residential purposes the defendant No. 1 has acquired a valid right by his purchase. 3rd.-That even if it was for horticultural purposes, its incident pointed to its transferable character, and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 is not liable to eviction.