SURENDRA NATH SEN Vs. DINABANDHU NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 5 April 1906, this Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were raiyats and not tenure holders and the defendant was an under-raiyat. The statutory right to continue in possession which is conferred by the Bengal Tenancy Act on occupancy raiyats cannot be availed of by the defendant. The rights and liabilities of the parties must, therefore, be governed by Secs.48 and 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

(2.) There was a written lease for nine years apparently with reference to the law as laid down in Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. By that lease, it was agreed that the tenancy of the defendant would expire at the end of nine years. The present suit was instituted after the expiry of those nine years and the only defence that the defendant could raise was that under a clause in the lease, he might apply for re-settlement and the plaintiff would be bound to grant him a re-settlement without any bonus.

(3.) No defence could be raised on the ground that the defendant had improved the property, raised embankments and cleared the jungles. The lower appellate Court, however, has on this defence of the defendant, held that he is entitled to get a fresh bundobust of the land.