RAJANI KANTA MUKHERJEE Vs. YUSUF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits for ejectment of the defendants, who were tenants under the plaintiffs, on the expiry of the term of their leases. The plaintiffs allege that they themselves are occupancy raiyats, and the defendants are under raiyats and are liable to be ejected under the provisions of Section 49, Clause (a), on the expiration of the term, of the written leases, and that, even if the defendants are non-occupancy raiyats, they are liable to be ejected under Section 44, Clause (e), on the ground that the terra of their leases had expired, they having been admitted to occupation of the lands under registered leases.

(2.) The Court of first instance held that the status of the plaintiffs was that of raiyats, and the defendants were under-raiyats and even if the latter had a raiyati right, they had not acquired a right of occupancy and accordingly decreed the suits. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs are tenure-holders and the defendants are non-occupancy raiyats, but that they could not be ejected, first, because they were not admitted to occupation of the lands by the registered leases, and secondly, because the defendants were not offered the option of renewal mentioned in the leases. The suits were accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

(3.) The lands are chur lands in a Government khas mahal, and the ijaradars under the Government granted a settlement of the lands to certain persons who, with the exception of one, were their relations. The original lease granted in 1888 was for 1,550 bighas. There was a fresh settlement in 1892 93 for 1,309 bighas with the same persons. The chur increased to about 7,000 bighas and the plaintiffs at one time obtained settlement of the whole chur. It appears that subsequently the settlement was limited to the original area, and litigation is going on in connection with the limitation of the area. The area settled with the plaintiffs in any case far exceeded 100 bighas and they are, therefore, to be presumed to be tenure- holders until the contrary is shown. Then again in the Record of Rights prepared in the last survey and settlement proceedings, the plaintiffs were entered as tenure-holders and the defendants as raiyats. Under Section 103B of the Bengal Tenancy Act the entry is to be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. There is, therefore, a double presumption that the plaintiffs are tenure-holders.