BHUPENDRA KUMAR DUTT Vs. SHEWDAS BILANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was heard and disposed of on 19 January last in the presrase of the minor respondent, but in the absence of the adults. The latter then made an application for vacating the judgment on the ground that their learned advocate had missed the case and had for that reason been unable to attend at the hearing. The application was allowed and the appeal has been reheard in the presence of all the parties.

(2.) The only question involved is one under Section 48C, Bengal Tenancy Act, which arises out of the following facts. There was a raiyati holding: held by one Abdul Rouf and under that raiyati there was an under-raiyati held by one Kali Krishna Dhar. The subject-matter of the present suit is a portion of a big his appertaining to that under-raiyati. On the death of Abdul Rouf, his interest devolved upon the widow Joygun Bibi. On 15 August 1924 when Joygun Bibi was holding the raiyati, the heirs of Kali Krishna sold the entire under-raiyati, including the jhil in suit, to one Gokuldas Bilani, father of two of the defendants and apparently grand father of the third. The transfer was recognised by Joygun Bibi in the sense that she accepted Gokuldas Bilani as her under-raiyai In 1928 the raiyati itself was brought to sale for arrears of rent and was purchased by the plaintiff. He too accepted the defendants as his under-raiyats and continued to treat them as such till 16 April 1935, when he served upon them a notice of ejectment under Section 48C, Bengal Tenancy Act, on the ground that be required the land for cultivation by himself. The defendants did not yet give up possession and thereupon the present suit was brought on 10 August 1937.

(3.) It will be seen that the plaintiff's suit was designed to meet three clauses of Section 48C. He purported to terminate the tenancy by giving a notice of ejectment under Clause (d); he treated the defendants as under raiyats not coming under any of the clauses of the second proviso to the section; and he brought himself under Clause (ii) of the proviso by claiming to require the land for cultivation by himself.