1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises are the proprietors of a plot of land which is in the possession of the defendant. They brought the suit to eject the defendant, on the ground that he was in wrongful possession without, as the plaintiffs allege, obtaining any settlement from the plaintiffs or from the predeoeesor of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant, on the other hand, claims the right to occupy the land as an ordinary raiyati holding. The issue which arises is, whether the defendant has a right to hold the land as a tenant or raiyat under the plaintiffs. On that issue the Trial Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed from that decision. The learned District Judge took a different view of the facts. He found that the defendant had been permitted by the landlord to enter upon the land subject to an agreement to be afterwards arrived at 'as to the rent etc.' He farther found that no concluded agreement was ever arrived at. In these circumstances, it seems to us that the defendant, if not a trespasser, has no right to hold the land as a raiyat, he does not come within the definition of raiyat' in the Bengal Tenancy Act, because he has not acquired a right as against plaintiffs to hold the land for the purpose of cultivating it. His possession is permissive. At the highest, his position would appear to be that of a person who is known in England as a tenant at will or a tenant by sufferance. He is subject to eviction at the mere will of the plaintiffs though he is doubtless entitled to reasonable time to remove his effects. We cannot agree with the learned District Judge that, on the facts found, the defendant has an implied tenancy or an implied right to hold the land as a raiyat. Nor can we agree with him that the plaintiffs are estopped from denying that he has such a right.
2. It may be that, if the defendant had asked for compensation in this suit for the improvements which he says he has made upon the land, he might have been entitled to some small sum on that account. He has, however, never asked for compensation and there are no materials on the record on which compensation can be assessed. The defendant, moreover, has been in possession throughout the time that this suit has lasted more than three years and, as the plaintiffs have expressed their willingness to give up any claim for mesne profits, we are of opinion that it would serve no useful purpose to pursue the matter farther. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the plaintiffs will have a decree entitling them to eject the defendant. The claim for mesne profits is disallowed. The parties will pay their own costs throughout.