Skip to content


Sheikh Abdul Vs. Chabil Jan Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.993
AppellantSheikh Abdul
RespondentChabil Jan Bibi and ors.
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 111 - forfeiture of tenancy--service tenure--tenant renouncing character as service tenant--no notice necessary. - .....must be remanded for a decision of the question which has been left undecided, namely, whether the land in suit is a service tenure or part of the defendants' jote. in the former, the suit must be decreed; but clearly if the land was part of the defendants' jote the suit must be dismissed. the costs of this appeal will abide the result of the case.2. the issue of a notice in this case appears to be also unnecessary from another point of view. the real reason for a notice in such cases is that a tenant may receive timely information that he is required to quit. in the present case, the defendants had already received ample notice of the landlord's intention in this respect, as they had once before been ejected from the land, and there can be no question as to the intention of the.....
Judgment:

Vincent, J.

1. The plaintiff in the case, out of which this appeal arises, sought to eject the defendants from certain land on the allegation that, as the defendants were service tenure-holders, they were liable to ejectment at the will of their landlord. The defendants alleged that the land was part of an occupancy jote. In the Court of first instance, the plaintiff obtained a decree. On appeal this decree was reversed on the ground that no notice to quit had been served on the defendants, and the learned Sub-Judge did not, in these circumstances, think it necessary to go into the question of title to these lands. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this second appeal, and the only question argued before me is that of notice. The land in dispute is apparently homestead land, and according to the plaintiff a service tenure. The provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act have, therefore, no application in the case, and it appears that the rights of the parties will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act. Under Section 106 of that Act, in ordinary circumstances a notice would be necessary to terminate the tenancy of the defendants. In the present case, however, having regard to the provisions of Section 111 of the same Act. I do not think that any notice was necessary. The defendants have renounced their character as service tenants by claiming the lands as their occupancy jote, not only in this suit but in a previous case under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and they have denied the title of the plaintiff to resume these lands. The lease to the defendants has, therefore, determined. In such circumstances no notice was necessary before suit. The decision of the lower Court is, therefore, set aside, and the suit must be remanded for a decision of the question which has been left undecided, namely, whether the land in suit is a service tenure or part of the defendants' jote. In the former, the suit must be decreed; but clearly if the land was part of the defendants' jote the suit must be dismissed. The costs of this appeal will abide the result of the case.

2. The issue of a notice in this case appears to be also unnecessary from another point of view. The real reason for a notice in such cases is that a tenant may receive timely information that he is required to quit. In the present case, the defendants had already received ample notice of the landlord's intention in this respect, as they had once before been ejected from the land, and there can be no question as to the intention of the plaintiff in regard to this service tenancy or in regard to the knowledge that the defendants had of this intention.


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