Skip to content


Noorzahan Vs. Musyatulla - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal808
AppellantNoorzahan
RespondentMusyatulla
Cases ReferredDuli Chand v. Rajkissore (ante
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - ejectment--right of occupancy--forfeiture--beng. act viii of 1869, section 52. - .....and his father have been actual cultivators for many years, and that the defendant in 1282 had acquired rights of occupancy; but the district judge goes on to find that inasmuch as, on the defendant's own admission, he has paid no rent to any one for five years, he has lost those rights of occupancy, and consequently is liable to be dispossessed after notice.3. it has been settled by the judgment of division bench of this court in the case of duli chand v. rajkissore (ante, p, 88: 11 c.l.r., 326) and we agree in that judgment, that a ryot having a right of occupancy cannot be legally ejected unless under an order regularly obtained under section 52 of the rent law, that is to say, under a decree for arrears of rent unsatisfied within fifteen days from the date on which it was.....
Judgment:

Prinsep, J.

1. The plaintiff sues to eject the defendant, stating that he has no occupancy rights, and that notice to quit has been regularly served on him.

2. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court that the defendant and his father have been actual cultivators for many years, and that the defendant in 1282 had acquired rights of occupancy; but the District Judge goes on to find that inasmuch as, on the defendant's own admission, he has paid no rent to any one for five years, he has lost those rights of occupancy, and consequently is liable to be dispossessed after notice.

3. It has been settled by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Duli Chand v. Rajkissore (ante, p, 88: 11 C.L.R., 326) and we agree in that judgment, that a ryot having a right of occupancy cannot be legally ejected unless under an order regularly obtained under Section 52 of the Rent Law, that is to say, under a decree for arrears of rent unsatisfied within fifteen days from the date on which it was delivered. The suit in its present form therefore is bad and must fail.

4. We think it necessary also to point out to the District Judge that even if a ryot who has acquired a right of occupancy fails to pay rent for five years, he does not necessarily forfeit that right unless it can be proved that he has abandoned the land, or a decree for ejectment, which would be operative under Section 52, has been passed against him.

5. The decrees of the lower Courts will be set aside, and the suit dismissed with costs in all the Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //