S.P. Rajkhowa, J. - (1.) This Revisional application is directed against Order No. 56 dated September 1, 1990, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Burdwan, in Misc. Case No. 37 of 1984 arising out of an application under Sec. 47 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the Title Execution Case No. 11 of 1983 arising out of Title Suit No. 135 of 1967.
(2.) Plaintiffs, Gopal Chandra Chakraborty and Ors. filed Title Suit No. 135 of 1967 in the Court of the Second Munsif at Burdwan for recovery of khas possession of the suit property as described in the 'kha' schedule to the plaint by ejecting the Defendant, Kanailal Das, who is a non -agricultural tenant in the salt property and for other reliefs. The Defendant contested the suit by setting up various pleas.
(3.) The learned Munsif in his judgment dated September 29, 1969, has observed that the following are the admitted facts: (1) The property of 'ka' schedule as annexed to the plaint measuring an area of 1.31 acres within Burdwan Municipality appertaining to a jama of Rs. 10,13,9 pics under Mahar,aj Kumar Udaychand Mahatab belonged to one Bhabatarini Devi the predecessor -in -interest of the present Plaintiffs. (2) The said property is the homestead of the Plaintiffs and their predecessor comprising the two storied pucca house within adjoining tank and bagan. (3) The property of 'kha' schedule which is the subject -matter of dispute is part and parcel of 'ka' schedule and was let out to the Defendant at an annual rental of Rs. 240 payable in 12 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. (4) The disputed tenancy is governed by the West Bengal Non -Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. (5) Bhabatarini Devi, the predecessor -in -interest of the Plaintiff, served a notice in September 1962 upon the Defendant terminating the tenancy calling upon him to quit and vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the month of March, 1963 and filed Title Suit No. 271 of 19S9 in the Court of the Second Munsif, at Burdwan, for the ejectment of the Defendant and for damages for unauthorised use and occupation. In that suit an ad interim injunction order was passed, but it was subsequently vacated upon finding that the two permanent structures were already there since before the institution of the suit. (6) There was a written but unregistered bilateral agreement (Ex.1) purporting to create a lease of the suit land for 5 years commencing from April 1, 1956, valid upto March 31, 1961. As Ex. 1 was not registered, the lease was valid only for the first year upto March 31, 1957. But even thereafter the Defendant was continuing in possession and the Plaintiffs used to accept rent upto March 1961. It was therefore a tenancy by holding over upto March 1961.;