This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Bhagulpore, dated the 9th May 1898.
The facts of the case are these:—The Defendant No. 2 was a raiyat of certain land in the zemindari of the Plaintiffs. He sold his holding to the Defendant No. 1, made over possession to the Defendant No. 1, and has not only abandoned the land but has ceased to pay rent for it to the landlord. The landlord now sues both the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for khas possession of the land; and the District Judge has given him a decree.
There are two points for decision in this case, first, whether the holding of the Defendant No. 2 was a transferable holding or not, and, secondly, whether he has abandoned the holding. Both these points have been decided against the Defendants.
The learned pleader for the Defendants does not impugn the correctness of the finding on the first point; but he says that the District Judge is wrong in finding that the holding has been abandoned by the Defendant No. 2; and he urges that under sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the landlord is not entitled to obtain khas possession of the holding without going through the procedure prescribed by sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. We think, however, that the learned District Judge is correct in the view he has taken in this case; and is in support of this view we need only cite the case of Lal Mamud Mandal v. Abtellah Sheikh and the case of Bhagaban Chandra Misri v. Bissemvari Debya Chowdhurani. We think that the District Judge was right in holding, under the circumstances of the case, that the Defendant No. 2 had abandoned his holding. It has been found by the District Judge that he is no longer in possession of the holding and that he pays no rent for it, and that the holding is not transferable. In these circumstances there is no doubt that the old tenant has abandoned the holding and that the new tenant is not entitled to resist the Plaintiffs' claim for khas possession. The provisions of sec. 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act are not exhaustive. They apply only to cases in which a landlord takes possession of an abandoned holding without bringing a suit. But they do not prescribe the only mode in which a holding can be abandoned and do not appear to us to apply to this case.
For these reasons we affirm the decision of the District Judge in this case and dismiss this appeal with costs.
S.C.S
Appeal, dismissed.