(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by a landlord for ejectment of the purchasers of a chandna tenancy on the ground that it was not transferable without the landlord's consent, and that the present occupiers were therefore in the position of trespassers occupying property abandoned by the lawful occupants. The suit was decreed by the Munsif of Balasore whose decision was affirmed on appeal by the Additional Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge, remarked in his judgment that chandnadars were tenants-at-will, and that occupancy holdings were not transferable without the landlord's consent under the Orissa Tenancy Act.
(2.) The learned Advocate for the appellants criticizes with some justification these dicta. For the first the learned Subordinate Judge relied on an unreported decision of this Court which did not in itself afford justification for the view which he entertained, a view which is inconsistent with the provisions of Secs.74 and 232(1)(c), Orissa Tenancy Act. A chandnadar whose interest has been recorded in the Record of-Rights is not a mere tenant-at-will liable to ejectment on a mere notice to quit from his landlord. And occupancy rights are of course transferable in Orissa, subject to certain conditions, since the passing of the Orissa Tenancy Act.
(3.) But the learned Advocate is on more difficult ground when he attacks the ultimate decision of the learned Subordinate Judge which is to the effect that the rights of a chandnadar who is not a raiyat are not transferable without the consent of the landlord unless there is local usage to the contrary, and that in the present case no such local usage has been proved. Under Section 236, Orissa Tenancy Act, two classes of chandnadars are defined. The first is the chandnadar who is a raiyat holding his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat, in which case the incidents of his tenancy are regulated, generally speaking, by the provisions of the Act applicable to land held by a raiyat.