Skip to content


Ali Mohammad Bepari Vs. Nayan Rajah Bhuiya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.912
AppellantAli Mohammad Bepari
RespondentNayan Rajah Bhuiya
Excerpt:
under-raiyat, lease to - stipulation that after expiry of term raiyat would qive under-raiyat fresh lease, validity of--ejectment of under-raiyat--bengal tenancy act (7111 of 1885), section 85. - .....that, after the expiry of the term of nine years, the raiyat would give the under-raiyat a fresh lease of the land. now, the raiyat seeks to eject the under-raiyat, and, in the lower appellate court, it was argued that this lease was in contravention of the terras of section 85 of the bengal tenancy act; but the learned district judge has pointed oat that the section only lays down that a lease in favour of an under-raiyat for more than nine years, should not be valid as against the landlord, that is, the raiyat's landlord. but it does not mean to lay down that such a stipulation as the parties to this case entered into, shall be null and void. we think on this point the learned judge's judgment is quite correct. then, the learned vakil for the appellant has raised another plea.....
Judgment:

1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, is a suit brought by a raiyat to eject an under-raiyat. The raiyat gave the under-raiyat a lease for nine years, and it was stipulated that, after the expiry of the term of nine years, the raiyat would give the under-raiyat a fresh lease of the land. Now, the raiyat seeks to eject the under-raiyat, and, in the lower Appellate Court, it was argued that this lease was in contravention of the terras of Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; but the learned District Judge has pointed oat that the Section only lays down that a lease in favour of an under-raiyat for more than nine years, should not be valid as against the landlord, that is, the raiyat's landlord. But it does not mean to lay down that such a stipulation as the parties to this case entered into, shall be null and void. We think on this point the learned Judge's judgment is quite correct. Then, the learned Vakil for the appellant has raised another plea before us, namely, that although in the defendant's lease it is agreed that the defendant is entitled to a fresh settlement on a fair rent after the expiry of the lease, yet as he has not taken such settlement, the plaintiff is entitled to eject him. He finds the plaintiff has never offered him a lease on a fair rent and has brought this suit to eject the defendant without giving him the option to take a fresh lease at any rent at all. Under these circumstances, we think the decision of the lower Appellate Court is perfectly right and the plaintiff is not in any way entitled to eject the defendant. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.


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