Skip to content


Afazuddi Khan Vs. Prasanna GaIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.991
AppellantAfazuddi Khan
RespondentPrasanna GaIn and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), sections 159, 160(g) - protected interest--avoidance of incumbrance. - .....within the meaning of section 159 of the bengal tenancy act. the plaintiffs held under a sub-lease granted by ganesh chandara chatterjee and others, who held under a permanent lease granted by brojendra kumar sen, brojendra kumar sen again holding under a permanent lease granted by prasanna kumar mitra and others. it is contended that the lease given by prasanna kumar mitra and others to brojendra kumar ben authorized brojendra kumar to grant sub-leases, and as the sub lease granted by ganesh chetterjee and brothers was a sub-lease, and as it was, therefore, within the authority granted by the lease given to brojendra kumar san, it was a 'protected interest' within clause (g) of that section. the wards of the lease are that the lessee brojendra kumar sen was to enjoy the property.....
Judgment:

D. Chatterjea, J.

1. The only question that arises for decision in this case is, whether the position of the plaintiffs was that of tenants whose rights may be classed as protected interests' within the meaning of Section 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs held under a sub-lease granted by Ganesh Chandara Chatterjee and others, who held under a permanent lease granted by Brojendra Kumar Sen, Brojendra Kumar Sen again holding under a permanent lease granted by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others. It is contended that the lease given by Prasanna Kumar Mitra and others to Brojendra Kumar Ben authorized Brojendra Kumar to grant sub-leases, and as the sub lease granted by Ganesh Chetterjee and brothers was a sub-lease, and as it was, therefore, within the authority granted by the lease given to Brojendra Kumar San, it was a 'protected interest' within Clause (g) of that section. The wards of the lease are that the lessee Brojendra Kumar Sen was to enjoy the property by making projabili etc., that is, by settling tenants and otherwise. Admittedly Brojendra Kumar Sen settled Ganesh Chandra Chatterjee and others upon the land as sub-lessees under him. The light and interest of Ganesh Chandra Chatterjee was, therefore, granted by Brojendra Kumar San under the authority received by him from Prasanna Kumar Mitra. That being so, the right and interest of Ganesh Chatterjee and, therefore, of the plaintiffs do not appear to be such as can be interfered with by a purchaser under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendants Nos. 4 to 6, therefore, were not entitled to evict the plaintiffs.

2. The decree of the lower Appallate Court, therefore, must be restored with costs.

Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.

3. I agree with the conclusion of Mr. Justice Chatterjee. The case appears to ma to turn upon the precise force Co be attributed to the Bengali words set out in the judgment of the learned Munsif. My learned colleague, who is eminently qualified to express an opinion as to that, has coma to the conclusion that the words obtained in the lease from the Mitra to Brojendra Kumar San amounted to an express permission in writing to create the interest, which in fact was created in favour of Ganesh Chandara Chatterjee. This is not only the view of Mr. Justice Chatterjes, but also the view of the Munsif who and fully considered the precise force of the Bengali words; and, accepting as I do, the interpretation placed on these words, the conclusion which my learned collogue has expressed is the only one at which it is possible to arrive. I agree with him that the judgment of Mr. Justice Doss must be set aside, and the decree of the lower Appellate Court confirming that of the Munsif affirmed with costs including all the costs of the High Court.


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