Skip to content


Aminuddi Dafadar and Vs. Ananda Chandra Paul and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.924
AppellantAminuddi Dafadar and ;rahim Baksha
RespondentAnanda Chandra Paul and ors.
Cases Referred and Lani Mia v. Muhammed
Excerpt:
lease, under-raiyati - covenant for renewal of lease validity of. - .....the learned subordinate judge of tipperah affirming the decision of the munsif of chandpore. the suit was brought for ejectment under the provisions of section 49(a) of the bengal tenancy act. it was brought by a raiyat to recover possession against the under-raiyat on the expiration of the term of the lease granted. the contract of tenancy was evidenced by a document galled a kabuliat, which was executed by the tenant and accepted by the raiyat landlord. under the terms of the kabuliat the property was taken by the tenant for a period of nine years. there was a contract for renewal, under which the parties undertook that a further term of nine years would be granted to the defendant on the same terms as the original term. the terms expired in april 1911. this suit was not brought.....
Judgment:

No. 1495 of 1916

1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tipperah affirming the decision of the Munsif of Chandpore. The suit was brought for ejectment under the provisions of Section 49(a) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was brought by a Raiyat to recover possession against the under-Raiyat on the expiration of the term of the lease granted. The contract of tenancy was evidenced by a document Galled a Kabuliat, which was executed by the tenant and accepted by the Raiyat landlord. Under the terms of the Kabuliat the property was taken by the tenant for a period of nine years. There was a contract for renewal, under which the parties undertook that a further term of nine years would be granted to the defendant on the same terms as the original term. The terms expired in April 1911. This suit was not brought until May 1914. So a substantial part of the contract for renewal has been performed. Unless the covenant for renewal infringes on some provision of the law, there is no reason why full effect should not be given to such contract. It is quite clear from the two decisions of this Court reported as Ali Mohammad v. Nayan Rajah Bhuiya (1) and Lani Mia v. Muhammed, Easin Mia (2) that a covenant for renewal in a case like the present is a perfectly valid Contract. The defendant being in possession under the terms of that contract is not liable to be ejected by the plaintiff. In that view, the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the plaintiff's suit must stand dismissed with costs both in this Court and in the Courts below.

No. 1715 of 1916.

2. The judgment that we have just delivered in Appeal No. 1495 will govern this case also. This appeal is also decreed on the same terms with costs.


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