1. The only question arising in this second appeal is whether the defendants could be ejected without notice. It has been found by the learned Sub-Judge that the term of the kabuliat, under which the defendants' father held the lands, expired some time ago. It did, as a matter of fact, expire in 1901. He then goes on to say: 'Defendants have, therefore, been holding over. They are, therefore, tenants of the lands from year to year under Section 116 of the Transfer or property Act, and are entitled to 15 days' notice before ejectment.' It may be that he was incorrect in holding that the Transfer of Property Act applied. If it did apply, there is no question that they would be entitled to notice. But assuming that the Bengal Tenancy Act applies, the question then arises, are they entitled to notice under that Act? It is true that a mere omission by a landlord to sue in ejectment immediately after the tenancy had expired would not be a ground for saying that the tenant was holding over and was not a trespasser. This was decided in Ratan Lal Gir Sanyasi v. Farshi Bibi 34 C. 396; 11 C.W.N. 826. There the suit was brought a year and seven moths after the period of the lease had expired. Here the case is very different. The tenant Chandra, who executed the kabuliat, held over for some five years after his tenancy had expired. He then died and his sons continued to hold the lands. Altogether there was an interval of eight years between the expiry of the lease and the present suit. We think that it may be reasonably inferred that they were in the position of tenants holding over after the expiry of the lease, as the Sub-Judge has found. Under these circumstances, it is clear that they are entitled to notice under Section 49(6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.