Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment.
2. The Munsif passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour. That was overruled by the lower Appellate Court. But the decision of the lower Appellate Court has in turn been reversed by the judgment of this Court and it is from that judgment that this Letters Patent appeal is preferred.
3. The Judge of the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that as between the parties to this litigation the plaintiff had created a permanent tenancy in favour of the defendants-appellants before us. The documents are susceptible of that meaning and we see no reason for disturbing the learned Judge's conclusion.
4. An argument was addressed to us suggesting that Section 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act had some bearing on the case. It is manifest from the terms of that section that it does not' directly apply as between the parties to this suit. - Then it has been suggested that by analogy the section applies. To that I will make answer in the words of the Privy Council in Ram Chunder Dutt v. Jughes Chunder Dutt 19 W.H. 353 : 12 B.L.R. (P.G.) 229 that arguments from analogy may arise, where a principle of law if involved, but where the Courts are dealing with the positive enactments of a Statute, reasons founded upon analogies are scarcely applicable.
5. The conclusion, therefore to which I come is that the judgment of Mr. Justice Beach-croft must be set aside and that of the lower Appellate Court restored : and the appellant must receive from the respondents his costs of both appeals in the High Court.
D. Chatterjee, J.
6. I agree.