- (1.) THE decision of this second appeal by the plaintiff (who has lost in both the courts below) turns on a true construction of section 7 (2) of west Bengal Non-Agricultural tenancy Act, 20 of 1949, (hereinafter referred to as simply "the Act" for brevity's sake ). This section, in so far as it is material here, reads: 7. Incidents of certain tenancies. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract- (2) if the non-agricultural land comprised in any tenancy which has been or is created after the commencement of the transfer of Property Act, 1882, has been held for a term of not less than twelve years without any lease in writing, the point arises in the manner following:
(2.) THE land listed in schedule ka to the plaint was taken lease of by the defendants (now respondents before me) from the appellant in 1925. It was a parole lease for a year, followed by successive annual leases, all given by word of mouth, right up to 1933. 1933 going out, a written lease-an unregistered one-came to be made for 1934. The respondents continued to ; remain where they were: schedule Ka land: even after 1934's end. Worse, from May 10, 1950 they started raising pucca structures on the land. Six days later, to wit, on May 16, 1950 the appellant instituted in the first court of the munsiff at Asansol the suit (out of which this appeal arises) praying for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from constructing any sort of pucca structure on Ka schedule land.
(3.) BOTH the courts refuse the relief sought by way of a permanent injunction. They refuse, because the respondents having been in possession of nonagricultural land set out in schedule Ka to the plaint for more than twelve years at least from 1935 have the right to erect pucca structures by virtue of clause (a) of sub-section 2 of section 6 of the Act.;