GURDIT SINGH Vs. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant In an action for ejectment and recovery of arrear rent is the appellant. The respondent -- The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. instituted a suit for evicting the defendant on the ground that he was a monthly tenant in respect of a homestead land in Sakchi, comprising of six plots in khata No. 157 measuring 1.59 acres and that premises was required for the use and occupation of the plaintiff. Rs. 32/10/0 pies in all were claimed by way of arrear rent for the period from April, 1953 to June, 1954, at the rate of Rs. 2/2/10 pies per month. The defence was that the land was originally settled by the plaintiff-company with the defendant about 30 years back for agricultural purposes and since then the defendant was making use of that land for the same purpose after reclaiming the land. He, therefore, claimed occupancy right over that land, and pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction as the case was to be covered by the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, against which the plaintiff appealed and succeeded. Hence, this appeal by the defendant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court was wrong in holding that the land was homestead land and the original purpose of tenancy was non-agricultural. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it was stated that the defendant was a tenant from month to month under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 2/2/10 pies, payable annually, the said rent being payable according to English calendar. No doubt, in the written statement it was pleaded that the purpose of tenancy and the nature of the land were agricultural. To prove that, the defendant did not produce any document. The witnesses examined on his behalf other than himself did not state what was the purpose of tenancy at the time the land was settled by the plaintiff-company with the defendant. All that those witnesses said was that the defendant was growing a garden on a portion of that land and in other portion he had a pucca room where he was living. This evidence is only about user. The nature of the tenancy will depend upon the purpose for which it was originally taken and in this case the plaintiff asserted that from the very beginning it was for residential and not for agricultural purpose. This has not been successfully controverted by the defendant as held by the court below. This is a question of fact and the appeal is concluded in that.

(3.) About the nature of the land, it will be enough to say that in the survey settlement it was recorded as 'Dihi Bari'. Mr. Lacey's Settlement Report of Dhalbhum shows that there were numerous instances where purely non-agricultural persons had taken settlement of lands for building houses or for other non-agricultural purposes and in those cases those non-agricultural tenants were given khatians for the land with the status 'Dihi Bari' recorded on them. This explanation and the entry in the Khatian leave no room for doubt about the nature of the land and that it was homestead and held for non-agricultural purpose. Learned counsel pointed out from the khatian that in respect of the suit land the marginal entry showed that there was some orchard in some portion. That will not make any difference because the survey settlement took place about seven years after the original settlement of the land with the defendant.