Mukerji, J - (1.)This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff who is the appellant before us for recovery of khas possession in respect of a piece of land ejecting the defendant who had been holding the same. The suit was instituted after service on the defendant of a notice to quit on the footing that the tenancy which forms the subject-matter of the suit was a tenancy-at-will or a tenancy from year to year. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It is necessary to state quite shortly some of the facts relating to this case in order to appreciate the contention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal.
(2.)The plot of land belonged to one Uma Charan Majumdar who transferred his rights therein to one Chandi Charan Ray Choudhury in 1313 B.S. and Chandi Charan Ray Choudhury in 1319 in his turn transferred the rights which he had acquired to one Ashutosh Lahiri who is the plaintiff-appellant before us. Prior to the transfer in favour of Chandi Charan, Uma Charan had by a pottah settled the disputed land with one Rajbullubh in 1304 B.S. Rajbullubh transferred the rights which he had obtained from Uma Charan to one Chandi Charan Mitra the defendant- respondent in this appeal. The Courts below, as I have stated, have dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the notice which had been served on the defendant was a valid one and had been properly served if it be taken that the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendant as a tenant at-will-or a tenant from year to year. They were, however, of opinion that the tenancy that was created by the document of 1304, to which I have referred, was not a tenancy at will or a tenancy from year to year and it was a tenancy which in any event could enure for the lifetime of the grantee, the aforesaid Rajbullubh.
(3.)The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellant before us is to the effect that upon a proper construction of the lease of 1304 it should have been held by the Courts below that the interest of the defendant was nothing more than that of a tenant at will or a tenant from year to year. This contention is sought to be supported by reference to a number of decisions of this Court and also to the terms of the document itself. Reference has also been made to another case between the parties in respect of a piece of adjoining land. The question as to the nature of the interest which had been conveyed by this last mentioned document came up for consideration before this Court and was decided in one of the reported decisions upon which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant. The document of 1304 purports to run in these words: You having applied to get settlement off 6 kanis of land, as described in the schedule below for the purpose of constructing your basha, I hereby fix annual rent for the said 6 kanis of land at Rs. 8 and settle the same with you; you shall enjoy and possess the said land by constructing your basha and residing therein, regularly paying the rent. To this effect I execute this pottah.