BIDHUMUKHI CHOWDHURANI Vs. ASMATULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my judgment this case raises a point of some interest.

(2.) It appears that on the 30th of April 1900, the zemindar Maharajah, who was the putnidar, got a decree for durpatni rent, and the result of that was that on the 25th of January 1907, the plaintiff at the execution sale which was held under the decree, purchased the durpatni interest, and thereupon the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to Bhairab, with reference to the se-patni interest which was in him at that time. That se- patni estate had been created by Juggomohan in the year 1886.

(3.) Now, the suit was brought in this case by the plaintiff against the defendants, the occupancy-holders, for rent. They set up the defence that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for rent, the first ground for that defence being that the se-patni interest which was in Bhairab had not in fact been put an end to, and the "reason why they said it was not put an end to, was that it was a protected interest" within the meaning of Section 160, Clause (g) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which runsas follows; any right or interest which the landlord, at whose instance the tenure or holding is sold, or his predecessor-in-title, has expressly and in writing given the tenant for the time being permission to create: "the landlord in question in this case being Lachmiput or his successor-in-title, namely, the zemindar Maharajah, the putnidar, to whom have already made reference.