BENGAL INDIGO COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MOHUNT ROGHUBUR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant company are owners of the Barouli Indigo Factory, which they acquired in April, 1890. The respondent is proprietor of the entire 16 annas of Mehal Barouli, portions of which were occupied by the owners of the factory from September 14, 1867, until September, 1890, under a series of leases from the respondent and his predecessors. These were: (1.) a ticca pottah of 105 bighas, 1 cottah, and 8 dhoors, for five years ending in September, 1872; (2.) a peshgi patowa ticca, for nine years ending in September, 1881, of the 105 bighas, 1 cottah, and 8 dhoors included in the preceding lease, together with additional land bringing up the total area to 240 bighas; (3.) a ticca pottah, of same date with the last, of 25 bighas for ten years ending in September, 1882; and (4.) a zuripeshgi ticca patowa pottah, of the whole 265 bighas included in the two previous leases, for an additional term ending in October, 1890.

(2.) THE first and third of these documents were in the ordinary terms of a lease for cultivation. The second and fourth of them had this peculiarity, that at their commencement the tenants advanced to the lessor a lump sum, in the one case of Rs. 4500 and in the other of Rs. 5000, for the liquidation of debts due to his creditors, the tenants being entitled to recover payment by retaining out of the rents payable by them a yearly instalment of the sum advanced, with interest at the rate of 6 annas per mensem. The lands were cultivated for the purpose of growing indigo; and the leases contained an express obligation by the tenants to quit occupation at their expiry.

(3.) THE Subordinate Judge gave effect to the leading plea of the appellants, and dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal to the-High Court, his decision was reversed by Trevelyan and Ameer Ali JJ., who held that the second and fourth of the leases above mentioned did not create a proper right of occupancy for purposes of cultivation, and could not be made the foundation of a claim to raiyat occupancy. They further held that the appellants' defence was excluded by Section 7 of Act X. of 1859, which enacts that the provisions of the statute "shall not be held to affect the terms of any written contract for the cultivation of land entered into between a landholder and a ryot, when it contains any express stipulation contrary thereto."