Skip to content


Nathuni Ram Vs. Raja Paresh Nath Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.436
AppellantNathuni Ram
RespondentRaja Paresh Nath Singh and ors.
Cases Referred and Gale v. Mahranee Sreemutty
Excerpt:
chotu nagpur landlord and tenant procedure act (i.b.c. of 1879), section 6 - raiyat--tenant without right of occupancy--not 'raiyat' after due notice to quit. - .....acquired occupancy-rights.4. under section 6 of the act, every raiyat, who has cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, has a right of occupancy in that land. the defendant in this case, at the time of the institution of the suit, had certainly held the lands in dispute for a period of twelve years, and it remains to be decided whether after 1309 he was a raiyat. the term 'raiyat' is defined as meaning primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it. the question, therefore, is whether after the service of the notice in 1309, the defendant retained any right to hold the land. the courts below have found that the notice was sufficient.5. the decisions in sheikh khossal v. sheikh shukhowdee 1 w.r. 119 and aymel islam v. jardine.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit for khas possession which has been decreed by the Munsif and the lower appellate Court. The defendant appeals.

2. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendant was a non-occupancy raiyat of the lands under the Chota Nagpur Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act, 1879. He came into occupation in 1301 and, in 1309, the plaintiffs gave him notice to quit. The suit was instituted in 1314.

3. The learned Judicial Commissioner has held that, after the service of the notice to quit, the defendant became a trespasser. The defence is that the defendant acquired occupancy-rights.

4. Under Section 6 of the Act, every raiyat, who has cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, has a right of occupancy in that land. The defendant in this case, at the time of the institution of the suit, had certainly held the lands in dispute for a period of twelve years, and it remains to be decided whether after 1309 he was a raiyat. The term 'raiyat' is defined as meaning primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it. The question, therefore, is whether after the service of the notice in 1309, the defendant retained any right to hold the land. The Courts below have found that the notice was sufficient.

5. The decisions in Sheikh Khossal v. Sheikh Shukhowdee 1 W.R. 119 and Aymel Islam v. Jardine Skinner & Co. 8 W.R. 501 laid some support to the view that a tenant does not cease to be a tenant and become a trespasser until he is actually evicted. But these cases were based on Section 25 of Act X of 1859 and no such provision exists in the Chota Nagpur Act. Their effect also is greatly weakened by the decision of the Full Bench in Jonardun Acharjee v. Haradhun Acharjee 9 W.R. 513 : B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 1020. That decision shows that a landlord can terminate a tenancy without recourse to Section 25 of Act X in a case coming' under that Act, and justifies the inference that after due notice a tenant without a right of occupancy retains no farther title to the land. This view finds some corroboration in the decisions in Mackintosh v. Gopee Mohun Mojoomadar 4 W.R. 24 and Gale v. Mahranee Sreemutty 15 W.R. 133.

6. We are not prepared to hold that the view of the learned Judicial Commissioner is wrong, and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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