MONINDRA NATH CHOWDHURI Vs. RADHA PROSANNO GON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 4th July 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of the same place. The suit was brought for ejectment. The defendants are the original tenant and the two transferees. No notice to quit was served on the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge considered that the covenant restricting alienation in the lease was binding and, therefore, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were trespassers and had no interest. It is not necessary for us to go into that question. The case is a perfectly simple one on the terms of the lease. It was a lease to the defendant No. 1 for the purpose of building a pucca house on the land. The lease provided that, if the landlord desired to resume possession of the land, he could do so provided he paid for the value of the buildings; that means the buildings that were to be erected in accordance with the prior provision in the lease. There are no buildings on the land within the meaning of the prior provision of the lease, because they were all swept away by flood. The present buildings are huts and walls not coming within the meaning of the purpose for which the lease was granted. The landlord can, therefore, take possession of the land at any time upon paying compensation, if any It is said that her cannot take possession without giving notice. That is absurd. The parties must stick to the bargain made and if the defendant No. 1 thought it worth his while to take lease of a piece of land within the limits of the Municipality of Burdwan at a rent of 12 annas a year subject to the provision that the landlord " might at any moment re take possession on payment of full compensation for the buildings, then he must stand strictly to that bargain however inconvenient that may be. There are no provisions in the Transfer of Property Act requiring notice to be given in such a case. Those provisions for notice were inserted there to provide for cases where the parties are not regulated by their contracts. It is quite clear that the landlord in this case is entitled to resume possession. The suggested hardship on the defendants in having to deliver possession, at any moment is considerably discounted when the fact is taken into consideration that for four years by resisting the plaintiffs just claim the defendants have managed to maintain possession of this land in the town of Burdwan at a rent of 12 annas per annum contrary to the terms of the lease. I am not disposed, as at present advised, to disagree with the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment, and I agree with the conclusion arrived at by him. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs. Syed Shamsul Huda, J.

(2.) I agree.