- (1.) THE only question of taw involved in this second appeal has been framed by A. K. Chatterjee, 3. in his order of reference as hereunder : " Whether an under -raiyat, in order to get protection from eviction under proviso (i) (2) to Section" 48c of the Bengal Tenancy Act. must prove continuous possession for a period of twelve years in his character as an under -raiyat or whether he can claim the same benefit even if he is found to be in possession for a part of the continuous period of twelve years in some other character".
(2.) THE material portion of section 48c of the Bengal Tenancy act, 1885, inserted therein by the Amendment Act of 1928, may be reproduced hereunder : " An under -raiyat shall. . . . . . be liable to ejectment on one or more of the following grounds : -X X X X X (c) on the ground that the term of his lease has expired, when he holds the land under a written lease: (d) on the ground that the tenancy has been terminated by his landlord by one year's notice expiring at the end of the agricultural year when he holds the land otherwise, than under a written lease; x X X X X provided that an under -raiyat shall not be. liable to ejectment on the grounds specified in clause (c) or clause Id) (i) ii the under -raiyat has --X X X X X (2) been in possession of his land for a continuous period of twelve years, whether before or after or partly before and partly after, the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy. (Amendment) Act. 1928. "
(3.) AS already noted, the question that has arisen for our consideration in this appeal is whether, in order to acquire non ejectibility under the provisions of the proviso quoted above, an under raiyat possessing his land for a continuous period of twelve years was required to possess the same qua an under -raiyat only during the entire period of twelve years or whether an under -raiyat could have acquired such immunity from ejectment even if he possessed the land in some other capacity during any portion of that period of twelve years. An affirmative answer to the first question and, therefore, a negative answer to the second question would decree the appeal, while a negative answer to the first question and, therefore, an affirmantive answer to the second question would entitle its dismissal.;