Rampini and Handley, JJ.
1. This is an application against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, dated the 9th December 1897, The suit was one for the ejectment of korfa raiyats, who held at a yearly rent of Rs. 5-6 annas 10 gundas and the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit, on the ground that; the notice to quit served upon the korfa raiyats was insufficient, being one of about two months.
2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that in this case the defendants were entitled to six months notice expiring at the end of the year of the tenancy before they could be ejected from their holding, and in support of this view he relies on the case of Kishori Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Nund Kumar Ghosal (1897) I.L.R., 24 Cal., 720.
2. The learned pleader for the appellant has, however pointed out to us that the case referred to us no authority for the decision at which the Subordinate Judge has arrived. The present case comes from Monbhum, where the Chowdhry v. Nund Kumar Ghosal referred to above, is one coming from the district of Dacca, in which the defendant was tenant-at-will, and in which the subject of the tenancy was certainly not agricultural land, otherwise the provision of the Bengal Tenancy Act would have been applicable.
3. The case of action in that suit arose from the fact that the defendants had built a pucca posta and ghat upon the land, and the learned Judge who decided that case said that it did not come under the Tenancy Act, but under the purview of the case of Rajendronath Mookhopadhya v. Bassider Rhuman Khondkhar (1876) I.L.R., 2 Cal., 146, and they therefore held that 'there being no authority to the contrary in this country, we see no reason, nor has any reason been suggested, why the rule of English law should not be applicable to such a tenancy as the present in this country, and we think that six months, terminating at the end of the year, is the notice to which the tenant under such a tenancy as that in this case is entitled.'
4. We, however, do not think that this is any authority for a six months' notice being required in a case coming from Manbhum, in which the defendants are korfa raiyats.
5. The question of notice quit in cases coming under Bengal Act VIII of 1869, which Act is similar to Act X of 1859, has been considered in several cases. The first of these cases is Jagut Chunder Roy v. Rup Chand Chango (1882) I.L.R. 9 Cal., 48, in which the learned Judges laid down this rule: 'We think that the result of the cases is this, that such a raiyat is entitled to a reasonable notice. What is a reasonable notice is a question of fact which must ne decided in each case according to the particular circumstances and the local customs as to reaping crops and letting land. In the present case a three months' notice was given, and there was no contention that at the time when that notice expired, any crop was upon the ground, the necessity of removing which would have made the notice, under the circumstances, unreasonable.'
6. This case has been followed in the cases of Radha Gobind Koer v. Rakhal Das Mukerji (1885) I.L.R., 12 Cal., 82; Bidhumukhi Dabea Chowdharain v. Kefyutullah (1885) I.L.R., 12 Cal., 93; and Kali Kishen Tagore v. Golam Ali (1886) I.L.R., 13 Cal., 3.
7. We think that these cases lay down the rule which is applicable to the present case, and we, therefore, set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to him for a decision according to the law applicable to this case. He must consider what in the circumstances is a reasonable notice to quit, and decide the case accordingly.
8. If the notice is unreasonable, he should dismiss the suit; otherwise, he should dispose of the other issues which arise in the case.
9. Costs will abide the result.