Skip to content


Prohlad Chandra Shaha Vs. Ambica Charan Shaha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919Cal92,50Ind.Cas.514
AppellantProhlad Chandra Shaha;ambica Charan Shaha
RespondentAmbica Charan Shaha;prohlad Chandra Shaha
Cases ReferredJarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), section 85 - landlord and tenant--under--raiyati lease for term exceeding nine years--under--raiyat, right of, to recover possession of land by suit against landlord. - .....he disallowed the claim for possession of the lands, gave the plaintiff a decree for refund of rs. 100 which had been paid by the plaintiff to the landlord defendant on account of the under-raiyati lease.5. the appeal fails and is dismissed. each party to bear his own costs in all courts.no. 309 or 1917.6. the appellant does not wish to proceed with the appeal. the appeal is accordingly dismissed. each party to bear his own costs in all courts.
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises oat of a suit by an under raiyat to recover possession of the lands included in his under-raiyati lease as against his landlord.

2. The lease was for a term exceeding nine years and the sub-letting, therefore, was in contravention of the provisions of Section 85.

3. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as sub-lessee and the lower Appellate Court, though it does not come to a specific finding, generally agrees with the first Court upon the present question.

4. That being so, the plaintiff's claim must be restricted to the claim upon the lease registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 85, Clause (2). It, therefore, falls within the class of decisions of which Jarip Khan v. Durfa Bewa 15 Ind. Cas. 476 : 17 C.W.N. 59 : 16 C.L.J. 144. is a type and not within the class of cases where an under-raiyat being in possession of the property as sub-lessee sues to recover possession on being dispossessed.

5. It may be pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge, although he disallowed the claim for possession of the lands, gave the plaintiff a decree for refund of Rs. 100 which had been paid by the plaintiff to the landlord defendant on account of the under-raiyati lease.

5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Each party to bear his own costs in all Courts.

No. 309 or 1917.

6. The appellant does not wish to proceed with the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Each party to bear his own costs in all Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //