UMASHANKAR PRASAD Vs. KUNJ BIHARI THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Rowland, J. sitting singly and setting aside the judgment of the District Judge and restoring the decision of the Munsif by which the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

(2.) The facts are that the plaintiff owned certain zirat land. By an oral lease he let it out to the defendant for a definite period of one year (Fasliyear 1339) ending on 14 September 1932. As the defendant did not deliver up possession on 14th September 1932, when he became a trespasser, his right to occupy the land having ceased, the landlord in August 1933 sued to eject him. Certain defences were set up by the defendant which on the findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court have been found to be baseless and have not been supported either before the learned Judge sitting singly or before us. But one point was taken before the learned Judge which he accepted. The defendant said that he had acquired occupancy rights and that his case being governed by a lease for one year only was not affected by Section 116, Bihar Tenancy Act. He relied upon the wording of the last paragraph of the section: A proprietor's private lands known in Bengal as khamar, nij or nijjot, and in Bihar as zirat, nijsir or khamat, where any such land is held under a lease for a term of years or under a lease from year to year.

(3.) It was contended with success before the learned Judge that a lease for a definite period of one year is not on the one hand a lease from year to year, nor is it, it is said, a lease which comes under the term "a lease for a term of years".