1. This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the District Judge should not proceed to hear and determine an appeal. The appeal has been stayed under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. As, in my opinion, this rule must be made absolute on the third ground, it is not necessary to consider the first and the second. The point raised in the third ground is that the defendant is not a non-agricultural tenant within the meaning of the Act. The relevant words in Section 2 are as follows:.. but does not include a tenant who so holds a non-agricultural land together with any structure thereon erected or owned by the person under whom such tenant holds or by the superior or predecessor-in-interest of such person.
2. It is not disputed that the opposite party is the tenant of both the land and buildings. It appears that he has erected three sheds which are known ekchalas. The contention made on his behalf is that that is sufficient to bring him within the meaning of a non-agricultural tenant. I need hardly say that that contention is not supported by the words used in the definition. The rule is accordingly made absolute and the lower appellate Court is directed to hear the appeal. The petitioner will get his costs of this rule; hearing fee one gold mohur.