Rabindranath Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, who brought a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed property on a declaration of his title therein and also for mesne profits. In the trial court the-plaintiff succeeded but on appeal by the defendants in the first appellate court below, the decree in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of determination of this appeal may be stated in brief One Sarala Bala Dasi took lease of the disputed land from the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-landlords. The original lease was executed in favour of two persons, namely, Sarala and one Srikanta her paramour. Srikanta was a name-lender. It is admitted by both the parties that in fact Sarala was the tenant. There is no dispute also that the tenancy was for non-agricultural purpose and that the tenancy was governed by the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. From the khatians it also appears that the defendant-landlords are also recorded as non-agricultural tenants. There is no doubt, therefore, that the defendants-landlords were the non-agricultural tenants and Sarala was the non-agricultural under-tenant as classified in section 3 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. Admittedly again, the lease was for a period till the death of Sarala i.e. to say, for the life-time of Sarala. Sarala died and one Kishore Sardar, the brother of Sarala was the sole heir and, as such he claimed the suit property. Almost immediately after the death of Sarala, the property was sold to the present plaintiff Binapani Roy. The allegation of the plaintiff is that she got possession but the defendant-landlords by force ousted her and took khas possession of the property in suit. She, therefore, brought a suit for recovery of khas possession, for declaration of her title in the suit property and for mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed non-agricultural tenancy right in the suit property under the defendant-landlords.
(3.) Before the trial court the plaintiff relied upon Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act for her right against eviction. Under sub section (3) of Section 7 of the Act, if any non-agricultural land has been held for a term of not less than 12 years under a lease in writing but no term is specified in such lease then the tenant shall get certain rights against eviction. At this stage, however, we are not concerned to see the nature of right. In the present case, admitted, there is one lease in writing and according to the term of the lease Sarala was to enjoy the lease during the period of her life-time. There is no doubt also that for more than 12 years she was a tenant. Now the question that fell for determination . before the courts below was whether in that lease there was any teem specified. That is important because if no term is specified, then Sarala or his successor may have some right against eviction. According to the trial Court, there was no "term" in which was specified in the lease. According to him the 'term' to be specified must be in terms of year, months, days, etc. In the lease as it was stated that it was for the life-time of Sarala. According to the trial court there was no knowing as to how many years she would live or for how many months/and, therefore, there was no "term" specified. In this view of the matter, the trial court held that with the death of Sarala the lease did not expire and consequently the plaintiff having purchased the land from the heir of Sarala was entitled to get back the suit lands on the declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant. The learned Additional District Judge who disposed of the appeal, however, was of different view on the meaning of "term" appearing in the last portion of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. According to the learned Judge, the word "term" appearing for the second time in sub-section (3) of Section 7 does not necessarily mean a specified period expressed in days, months or years, but it means a period during which the lease is to subsist, that is to say, a definite period which can be understood by the parties. In the present case when it was stated in the lease that it was granted for the life time of Sarala, there was the 'term' specified meaning that the lease would be subsisting during the life-time of Sarala, which was not indefinite. In this view, it was held by the Appellate Court below that Sarala heir or successor or the plaintiff would not have any right in the tenancy as alleged due to the provision of Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act.;