AFILADDI Vs. SATISH CHANDRA BANERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 obtained a permanent tenure from the plaintiff. One of the conditions of the lease was that the defendants should not transfer the tenure and that if they did, the plaintiff should be entitled to re-enter. Eventually, the defendants sold the tenure to defendant No. 7. The plaintiff brought the present suit for ejectment and in accordance with the terms of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, he, specified the sum of Rs. 566-4 as reasonable compensation for the breach of the condition.

(2.) The Munsif found that the breach was not capable of remedy; but he found that a sum of Rs. 250 would be reasonable compensation for the breach of the condition. He allowed the defendants a fortnight s time within which to pay that sum, failing which the plaintiff was to get Khas possession. He also directed that the defendant No. 7 would be recognised as the plaintiff s tenant. The plaintiff appealed. The Subordinate Judge, while agreeing that the breach of contract was not capable of remedy, set aside the decree of the Munsif and directed that the plaintiff should get khas possession of the tenure by ejecting the defendants. He also made an order for re-payment of Rs. 250, which had been deposited in accordance with the Munsif s decree, by defendant No. 7. The sufficiency of the sum awarded as compensation was not questioned.

(3.) The present appeal is by defendant No. 4 and is based on the ground that, under Section 155, the tenant was entitled to protection on deposit of the amount found to be reasonable compensation. Against this view, it is argued that Section 155 does not apply and that the section is intended to apply only where the breach is capable of remedy or of compensation in money.