1. This is a rule calling upon the plaintiffs-opposite parties to show cause why an order of the Munsif refusing to stay a suit under Section 3 of Bengal Act 9 of 1940 should not be set aside. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a non-agricultural tenant. The term is defined in Section 2 of the Act as follows:
'Non-agricultural' tenant means a tenant who holds under another person, and is liable to pay-rent to such person for non-agricultural land which, under the terms of any agreement, such tenant is entitled to use for any homestead or residential purpose or for the conduct thereon of any commercial or industrial enterprise or any trade or business.
2. The suggestion of the petitioner is that he holds the land for the purpose of carrying on a business. It does not appear that the terms of the agreement between the parties were ever reduced to writing. The petitioner was a servant of the plaintiffs and was apparently given certain rights in this property. Now, there has already been a title suit between the parties in order to define those rights. The finally published Record of Rights gave the petitioner a permanent tenancy and the contention of the plaintiffs was that the petitioner who was looking after settlement work on behalf of the plaintiffs took advantage of his position to have some false entries made. Now, the decision of that title suit is that the only right that the petitioner has is to sell fruits from the trees and fish from the tank. This is quite insufficient to make him a non- agricultural tenant within the meaning of Bengal Act 9 of 1940. The rule is, accordingly, discharged with costs. The hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur.