1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of an action, in. ejectment on the ground that the defendant is a tenant on the land and the tenancy has been terminated by proper service of notice to quit. The plea of the defendant is that she holds a permanent interest and her tenancy is not liable to be terminated by notice. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs but did not allow them the rent claimed and' costs. The defendant appealed against that decision and the plaintiffs also preferred a cross-objection as regards the portion of the claim dismissed. The Subordinate Judge held that the tenancy was a permanent one. He relied upon these facts: There was no written lease creating the tenancy; the tenancy had come down to the defendant by a series of successions; the rent had not been changed for at least 65 years: the land was let out for dwelling purposes and it was situated within the Howrah Municipality; the rent remained unchanged, whereas the value of the land had increased abnormally. From these facts, the learned Subordinate Judge presumed that the original grant was of a permanent character. He accordingly dismissed the claim for ejectment and allowed the plaintiffs the rent claimed. Against that decree, the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
2. It is contended before us by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs-appellants that the mere fact that the rent has not been changed for a series of years cannot give rise to the presumption that the original grant was of a permanent character. But from all the circumstances that the Subordinate Judge has stated in his judgment, we do not think the inference cannot be legitimately drawn that the original grant was of a permanent character. An ordinary tenancy before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act was not heritable. In this case, there have been a number of successions. If the land was held on ticca tenancy, there is every reason to suppose that when the value of the land increased abnormally, the same rent might not have been continued for the long series of years. We do not think, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his conclusion that the tenancy was a permanent tenancy. That being so, this appeal must be dismissed with costs.