1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the defendant from a house on the allegation that the defendant is a tenant-at-will only and that as he refuses to pay enhanced rent the plaintiff is entitled to eject him.
2. The defendant claims that the land in suit was let to his predecessors 60 or more years ago to build upon, on the understanding that the lease would be a permanent one.
3. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit. It has been found that there was an enclosure (ahata) in Cawnpore which belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiff. This enclosure was let out to tenants for building purposes on, small rent. This fact is practically admitted in the second paragraph of the plaint.
4. It appears in evidence that there are now some 114 tenants who have got houses in this enclosure. The plaintiff naively in his plaint explains why he brought the suit. He says that, on the one hand, he has to pay additional taxes to the Municipality and, on the other hand, rents have gone up all over Cawnpore, and he does not see why he should not share in the rise. The Courts below have dismissed the suit holding that the land was let out to the defendant or his predecessors to build upon, on a permanent lease. In second appeal two main grounds have been pressed: the first and the 10th. The first ground is that inasmuch as evidence has been produced on behalf of the defendant to show that the terms of the lease were put into writing, the document alone was admissible and no other evidence was admissible to prove the terms of the lease, and the 10th ground is that a permanent tenancy could be created only by a registered document, and as none such is forthcoming in this case, there is no legal evidence to prove that the lease is a permanent lease.
5. The Court below has found (i) that the origin of the tenancy and its terms are unknown but it is certain that the tenancies were created more than thirty years ago and possibly fifty or sixty years ago. (2) It is found that the land was let for building purposes and the lessees constructed houses on the parcels of land in dispute at considerable expense. Exception is taken to this that the houses were built at 'considerable expense.' I do not think it matters much as to what was exactly the amount spent in building these houses. It is proved they are pucca buildings. (3) It is also found that the tenancies in dispute were transferred from time to time and that the plaintiff acquiesced in these transactions. (4) Lastly, it has been found that all other cases brought by the landlord against other tenants in this 'ahata' on the allegation that they were tenancies-at-will, have been dismissed on the finding that the tenancies were permanent. We may leave out the last finding as, perhaps, being inadmissible, It seems to me that on the other findings the Court was perfectly justified in holding as a fact that the land was originally let for building purposes on a permanent tenancy. The facts of this case are very like those in Caspersz v. Kader Nath Sarbadhikari 28 C. 738 : 5 C.W.N. 858, and as that case was expressly approved of by their lordships of the Privy Council in Afzal-un-nisa v. Abdul Karim 50 Ind. Cas. 749 : 17 A.L.J. 608 : 36 M.L.J. 580 : 26 P.W.R. 191 : 9 : 1 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 47 : 26 M.L.T. 55 : 81 P.R. 1919 : 23 C.W.N. 966 : (1919) M.W.N. 494 : 30 C.L.J. 152 : 21 Bom. L.R. 891 : 65 P.L.R. 1919 : 46 I.A. 131, (P.C.) it seems to me that the appeal must fail. I accordingly dismiss it.