Macleod, C.J:— The plaintiffs Bled this suit in ejectment. The defendant pleaded that she was a permanent tenant.
2. The trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree which was reversed in appeal. It is curious that a Judge of the experience of Mr. Bhat should have considered that the onus lay on the plaintiffs in an ejectment suit to prove that the tenancy was an annual one. The presumption is that the tenant is an annual tenant and the onus lies upon him to prove he is something more. But it is perfectly clear that initial error of the learned Judge had no effect on the final decision. If we strike out the whole of that paragraph where he considers the case from the point of view of the plaintiffs, and begin with the paragraph where he deals with the defendant's evidence, the decision shill remains correct A defendant who wishes to prove he is a permanent tenant must prove, first of all, if he has not got a document of permanent tenancy, the anti quity of his tenure. The Judge on the evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that she and of the tenancy at a uniform rent could not be doubted. Then the second paragraph of section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code comes into operation. The landlord has to prove that there is evidence of the intended duration of the tap ency either by agreement or by usage. If he cannot do that, then it is presumed that the tenancy is co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of the landlord. So we think the decision of the lower Court is right.
3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
4. Appeal dismissed.