BROJO NATH DAS CHAUDHURY Vs. ABDUR RAHAMAN MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of the Second, Subordinate Judge of Sylhet dated the 30 of March 1922 confirming a decision of the Munsif. The plaintiffs sued to eject the defendants from their homestead and certain agricultural land. The defendants had no occupany rights but held under a lease for one year commencing in 1314. After the expiration of one year the defendants held over under the terms of the tenancy until the year 1322. In the year 1322 the notice dated 14 Aswin 1322 was prepared by the plaintiffs and served on the defendants on the 17 of October. The defence taken by the" defendants was that they. were occupancy raiyats that no notice was served and that if it was served it was invalid. Both the Courts have found that the defendants had no occupancy rights and that the notice was served but the First Court held that the notice was insufficient and also that the nazarana of Rs. 160 which had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs must be returned as a condition of ejecting them. The Second Court held that no refund of nazarana was necessary but held that the notice was not sufficient agreeing with the Munsif on this point. Hence this appeal. The notice is addressed to the tenants. It states the land and the boundaries of the land occupied by them and that the defendants had been cultivating the land under the plaintiffs, that the defendants had no occupancy rights and were tenants-at-will liable to be ejected and that they had no right to cultivate the land against the plaintiffs will. The notice further states that as the defendants had been mischievous and hostile to the plaintiffs it was necessary to bring the land into plaintiffs khas possession and. that the defendants were so informed by the notice within 30 Chait next to appear before their landlords or their agents and duly submit istafa, failing which proceedings would be taken against them and the defendants would have no connection with the above land from 1st Baisak 1323 B. Section Whether six months notice is necessary or merely a reasonable notice is necessary, in my opinion, the notice in question complies with all these requisites. The Courts below apparently were influenced by the fact that the notice refers to the 30 Chait and that in the year 1322 Chait had 31 days and that, therefore, the notice did not expire with the year of the tenancy. But we think that both the Courts below failed to take into account the effect of the concluding words, of the notice namely that the defendants had no connection with the land from the 1 Baisak 1923. We think that you must read the notice as a whole and if you do so it was a clear or unequivocal notice to quit and expiring on the 31 Chait that is to say the end of the agricultural year. This, in my opinion, fulfils either the requirement of being a reasonable notice or being a six months notice expiring with the year of the tenancy itself. I feel some doubt, however, whether the six months rule of English Law is applicable in this country. As has been pointed out in Harifulla Gain V/s. Benode Behary Mondol 19 Ind. Cas. 557 : 17 C.W.N. 932. there is no necessity to import into the agricultural law of this country the six months notice required in the case of an annual tenancy in England or as required here in the Presidency Towns and, although it ;is not necessary for the reasons which I have indicated to decide the point in this case, my, own view is as that what is needed is a reasonable notice having regard to the nature of the tenancy and the date of the expiry of the agricultural year as indicated in the provisions of Section 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) The appeal accordingly succeeds and the plaintiffs will be entitled to the decree for ejectment which they sought in the suit and to their costs in all Courts. Mukerji, J.

(3.) I agree.