ANANT TELI Vs. RAMDHAN PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the land on which Gobindpur Bazar is built. The defendant-appellants are traders who have their shops and houses in the bazar. The plaintiff sued to eject them on the ground that they were tenants, at-will, alleging that they were inducted on to the land in 1896. The defence of the tenants was that their tenancies had existed for over 100 years, that the sites of which they were in possession were granted for the purpose of building shops and residences and that they have built substancial structures on those sites.

(2.) The Court of appeal below has come to the following findings: (1) that the tenancies were created prior to the passing of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882; (2) that the original settlement was for business, and residential purposes; (3) that the buildings put up by the tenants were put up with the knowledge of the landlord (it may be mentioned that 22 of these buildings are double storied); (4) that transfers of the sites which have taken place have not always been recognized by the landlord; (5) that the rent has not been uniform, and (6) that the evidence did not establish that the holdings were heritable although in some cases there had been succession which had been recognized by the landlord.

(3.) From these findings of fact, the Court of Appeal below inferred that the tenancies were not permanent. The question whether on the facts found a particular tenancy is a permanent one or not is a mixed question of fact and law.