1. This appeal and connected Rule 4783 raise the question whether Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies to non-agricultural lands situated in a Mufassil municipality. The lands have been found to be homestead lands occupied by tenants engaged in trade or other non-agricultural employment.
2. It has been argued that the local extent of operation of the Act extends to all municipalities except Calcutta or other excepted area, which this is not. That may be, but the question before us is whether Section 105 applies to the class of tenants which these have been found to be.
3. The Legislature contemplated, I think, that only three classes of tenants should be regarded as holding lands within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act, viz., a tenure-holder who has been held to mean a person collection rents from raiyats, raiyats holding lands for the purpose of cultivation and under-raiyats holding under them, The question is whether the tenants here come within the classes mentioned in Section 4.
4. An argument has been sought to be drawn from the fact that putnis have been treated as falling within the Act, and yet some putnis may exist in respect of non-agricultural property such as hats. It has, however, been stated without controversy that it has not been held that putnis of this class fall within the Act, whatever may be the case as regards putnis the nature of which brings their holders within the definition of tenure-holder in the Bengal Tenancy Act. There seems to me no doubt that in its general scope the Bengal Tenancy Act is a law for agricultural landlords and tenants.
5. It is found, as a matter of fact, that the tenants are not of the classes mentioned in Section 4. 'Tenant' in Section 105 means a tenant as defined in Section 4. In Section 105 'landlord' means the landlord of a tenant defined in Section 4 and 'land' means land held by a tenant as so defined.
6. There are two Rules 47S3 and 4784. The first has been asked for in case there was no appeal from the Settlement Officer to this Court, and the second in case there was no appeal from the Settlement Officer to the Special Judge. The concurrent conclusion of the learned Judge is correct and this appeal is dismissed with costs and the rules are discharged without costs.
7. I agree.