ASWINI KUMAR NAG MAJUMDAR; SITA NATH BASU; MATHURA LAL NAG; MADHU SUDAN PAL KUNDU Vs. MADHU SUDAN PAL KUNDU; KESHUB LAL NAG MAJUMDAR; HARI CHARAN NAG MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals arise out of suits filed simultaneously by co-sharer landlords against their common tenant, for what may be called rent, as a convenient term. Three of the suits were tried by a Munsif, and the appeals were heard by a Subordinate Judge. Two others were tried by the Subordinate Judge, and the appeals were heard by the District Judge.

(2.) There is only one point for decision and it is common to all the suits and appeals, but it was decided in favour of the defendant by the Subordinate Judge and in favour of the plaintiffs by the District Judge. The result is that the three appeals of 1913 have been filed by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and the two appeals of 1914 by the defendant against the decision of the learned District Judge.

(3.) The facts that have given rise to the appeals are as follows. The plaintiffs, as landlords, granted leases to the defendant, in 1293 B.S., and one of the conditions was that the lessee should not alienate his right in any way, and that if he did so the leases would be forfeited, and the plaintiffs would be entitled to khas possession of the lands demised. In spite of this stipulation the defendant granted an ijara settlement to one Harashit Ghose for a term of 999 years on Magh 9, 1311. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted suits for ejectment of the defendant on January 19th, 1906. Those suits were finally decided by a judgment of this Court passed on June 3rd, 1910, by which it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled tinder the provisions of Section 155, Bengal Tenancy Act, to claim from the defendant reasonable compensation for the breach of the conditions of the lease, and on the defendant s default, to a decree for ejectment. The cases were sent back to the lower Appellate Court with directions to determine what is reasonable compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs in each case, and after fixing, under the provisions of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the period within which the compensation should be paid, to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of such sums within the period fixed, and on default of the defendant to pay the sums within that period, for ejectment of the defendant from the tenure [see Keshab Lal v. Madhu Sudan Pal 6 Ind. Cas. 685 ; 12 C.L.J. 126].