1. These two appeals arise out of a sun to eject the defendant alter giving him notice to quit the facts are shortly these: The defendant held two leases one of 4-annas share in Mouza Chak. Bhabani and the other of 8-annas share of Mouza Debagram. These two leases were granted to the defendant by the zemindar of the village in 1300 B.S. The plaintiff got from the zemindar a paini lease of 16-annas share of these two villages in 1305 and 1306. In 1311, the plaintiff served the notice to quit on the defendant. The defendant disregarded this notice to quit and apparently the plaintiff took no further steps. Notice was again issued on the defendant but with similar result; and hence this suit.
2. The case of the defendant was that he got two permanent leases of the land in question. Both the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court held that the defendant had a lease for life of the properties in question; and, therefore, the plaintiff vas not entitled to eject him.
3. The plaintiff has appealed and cross-objections have been filed by the respondent. The whole case turns on the construction of the, leases granted by the zemindar. In these leases no term is stated. They are leases for the purposes of cultivation and for letting out the lands to tenants. No terms being specified in these leases, they may be taken to be leases that would enure for the lifetime, of the grantee. In the case of Lekhraj Roy v. Kunhya Singh 3 C. 210 : 4 I.A. 223 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 453 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 708 : 1 Ind. Jur. 636 : 1 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 722 (P.C). their Lordships of the Privy Council observe as follows: 'if a grant be made to a man for an indefinite period, it enures, generally speaking, for his lifetime, and passes no interest to his heirs, unless there are some words showing an intention to 'grant an hereditary interest.' These leases in question are for an indefinite period and the lower Courts have rightly construed them as being for the lifetime. of the grantee. In this view of the case I am not prepared to disagree with the finding of the lower Appellate Court. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
4. The cross-objections on behalf of the respondent have not been pressed and are dismissed without costs.
5. This judgment governs Appeal No. 1757 of 1922 which is also dismissed with costs.
6. I agree.