CHINTAMANI PARIDA Vs. BRAJASUNDAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against a decree passed by the District Judge confirming that of the trial Court and giving the plaintiff a decree of ejectment from the disputed lands. They consist of several plots of which plot No. 3360 with an area of 409 of an acre and No. 1361 with an area of 068 of an acre are admittedly homestead. The rest of the disputed lands except with regard to one which contains a tank (a very small tank) are admitted to be arable lands. There is nothing on record to enable me to hold that the tank is a part of the homestead. In this judgment I will consider it as a part of the arable lands too. As the defendants were recorded as under-raiyats in respect of all the disputed lands forming one holding, the plaintiff landlord wanted to eject them after due notice to quit under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act, Section 57. There is no controversy as to the sufficiency or the validity of the notice to quit.

(2.) The only point that is contested is that the defendants must have an occupancy right in the homestead portion of the holding in view of the provision of Section 236, Orissa Tenancy Act. It is Sub- Section (1) of the section which calls for an interpretation in this appeal. The Sub-section runs as follows: When a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat, the incidents of his tenancy of the homestead shall be regulated by the local custom or usage and subject to local custom or usage, by the provisions of this Act applicable to land held by a raiyat.

(3.) The learned District Judge has taken the view that this section, as it stands, will operate against a homestead which constitutes a holding by itself. The moment it is found that the homestead is a holding along with certain other lands as an under-raiyati holding or as any other holding governable by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act, Section 236 will have no operation. It is quite obvious that he has, in coming to this conclusion, been influenced by the history of the enactment of Section 236, and of its predecessor Section 182, Bengal Tenancy Act. No doubt if you allow the language of a statute to be either extended or narrowed down with reference to the history of the legislation, such a contention can be maintained, but otherwise not. Section 236, Sub-section (1) opens with the following words "when a raiyat holds his homestead otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat. These words fare clear and explicit enough to say that the section will operate the moment it is found that the homestead is the raiyat's homestead and is not a part of his raiyati holding even though the homestead might be held as part of any other holding except that of his raiyati holding. It will come within the words "held otherwise than as part of his holding as a raiyat." In the absence of any words in the section or in its context limiting the operation of these words, I am unwilling to hold that Section 236 will be inapplicable in the present case.