1. In this case the facts are as follows:--Certain parsons, spoken of as the Kundu Babus, are the holders of a permanent tenure. Under tham was a raiyat of the name of Deb Nath or Deb Narain Ghose. Under Deb Nath again was an under-raiyat of the name of Khiroda, whose interest was purchased by the present defendant in 1897. In execution of a decree for arrears of rent against Deb Nath the Kundu Babus bought the holding in 1903. They settled the holding with one Bacharam in 1905 and again with Baaharam's sons in 1912. Meanwhile the defendant remained in possession and he has continued in possession until the present day. Becharam's sons brought their suit in the year 1917, in order to eject the defendant as their under-raiyat and after service of notice to quit under the provisions of Section 49(b) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lease granted by Deb Nath to Khiroda was a permanent lease and not having been granted with the landlord's consent, was void as against the Kundu Babus, the landlords, who could have proceeded to eject Khiroda or her successor, the defendant, without notice, as has been held in the case of Peary Mohun Mookerjee v. Badul Chandra Bagdi 28 C. 205 : 5 C.W.N. 310 and Gangadhar Mandal v. Rajendra Nath Ghosh 19 Ind. Cas. 652 : 17 C.W.N. 860. The result is that from 1903 onwards the defendant has been in possession and by more than 12 years' possession prior to the suit brought by Becharam's heirs acquired a good title at least to a limited interest as against the landlords. The result would appear to be that the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that Bacharam and his sons are not entitled to tract the defendant as their under raiyat and that he cannot be ejected at their instance.
2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with Costs.