1. The question for decision here is, shortly, whether occupant cultivators who have asserted a transferable right in their lands and sold that right to a stranger without giving up their occupation, are liable to ejectment by the superior landlord, whom they may have repudiated in a suit brought against them for arrears of rent, and set themselves up as tenants of the purchaser.
2. Fortunately this question has been considered on several occasions by this Court.
3. In Narendra Narain Roy Chowdhry v. Ishan Chandra Sen 13 B.L.R. 274; S.C. 22 W.R. 22 it was ruled that the transferee of occupant rights, illegally sold, could be ejected if he had entered into actual possession of the land. The principle involved in that case was the abandonment by the tenant of his connection with the land, and the landlord's consequent right to re-enter. This principle is re-asserted in Ram Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Bholanath Lushkur 22 W.R. 200 and is also referred to in a recent judgment delivered on 17th January 1883 (appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1655 of 1881, Mitter, J. and O'Kinealy, JJ.).
4. In Dwarka Nath Misser v. Hurrish Chandra I.L.R. 4 Cal. 925 there is a remark which seems to indicate that occupant ryots who after sale remain upon the land by permission of the transferee, as his tenants, do so under circumstances amounting to an abandonment of their right of occupancy, and the result of that case shows that neither they nor the transferee can resist an action to eject them; but it must be remarked that in that case the ryots did not question the decree for their ejectment by appeal to this Court and therefore, we need not consider the judgment as deciding anything contrary to the other cases quoted above.
5. We accordingly follow those decisions and dismiss this appeal with costs.