1. This is an appeal by the defendant arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff was the proprietor of certain zirat land which he alleged that he had verbally settled with the defendant for one year only, viz. 1339 Fasli. The tenancy expired at the end of the agricultural year, i.e on 14th September 1932, and the suit was brought on 14th August 1933. The defence was that the defendant has been holding the land in suit since the year 1309; and he produced receipts which the Munsif accepted and held that the defendant had occupancy rights under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, S. 116 of the Act not being applicable to bar the acquisition of those rights, because the land had not been let on a lease for a term of years or on a lease from year to year. The District Judge on appeal held that the tenancy was a new tenancy beginning in the year 1339 Fasli, and that the defendant had no right to hold over after the expiry of that year. In second appeal it is faintly contended that the findings of the lower Appellate Court are not good findings of fact because the learned District Judge has not considered the evidence regarding the defendant's long possession which had been accepted by the Munsif. I think, however, that the District Judge having recorded findings of fact, I am not in a position to re-open the matter merely because some items of evidence may not have been considered. The facts will, therefore, be taken to be as stated.
2. This brings us to the substantial point taken in second appeal which is that though the defendant may not be able to prove that he has the right of occupancy in accordance with Ch. 5, Bengal Tenancy Act, nevertheless he has such rights as are described in Ch. 6 dealing with non occupancy raiyats, because the land was not held by him under the lease for a term of years or under a lease from year to year; and that where those conditions are not fulfilled, S. 116 does not bar the application of Ch. 6 of the Act. It is settled by the decisions in 8 Pat 4711 and; 9 Pat 347,2 that unless a proprietor when letting out zirat takes the precaution of letting it “under a lease for a term of years or under a lease from year to year”, the tenant inducted on the land, if he is “a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family”, (i.e within the definition of S. 5(2) of the Act, a raiyat) will get the benefit of the provisions of Ch. 6 thereof, and if he holds the land for twelve years, of Ch. 5. Mr. Mullick, appearing for the respondents, could not controvert this proposition.
3. But he contended that his client, the lessor, had in fact complied with the conditions laid down in S. 116 in that he had given out the land “under a lease for a term of years”. The argument was based on Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, (Act 10 of 1897) the purport of which is that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. The question is whether anything in the subject, or the context, is repugnant to reading “term of years” as including a term of one year or less. In my opinion the subject and the context are both repugnant to such a reading. For centuries a term of “years” has been generally understood to have a plural and not a singular meaning both in law (6 Co. Rep. 34b : 77 ER 303)3 and in popular language; and one might regard quantitative measures of time as a subject in which it is repugnant to use the plural with a singular meaning.
4. Then as to context, the expression “lease for a term of years” was substituted for the words “lease for a term” which occurred in an earlier enactment, and this can hardly be without significance. I do not think that the words in S. 116 in the context in which they occur can reasonably be read as applying to a verbal lease for one year or less. The language is in strong contrast with that used in Section 118 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, where the wording is “held by a tenant on a lease for a term exceeding one year, or, on a lease written or oral for a period of one year or less”. I think, therefore, that S. 116 did not apply so as to bar the operation of Ch. 6, Bengal Tenancy Act. That being so, the defendant having been inducted on the land for the purpose referred to in S. 5(2) of the Act, he be came a non occupancy raiyat and Ch. 6 applied to him. He is, therefore, under S. 44 liable, to ejectment on one or more of the grounds mentioned in that section and not otherwise. The ground that the term of his lease has expired is a ground for ejectment under S. 44(c) only where he has been admitted to occupation of the land under a registered lease. In my opinion, the defendant was not liable to be ejected by the plaintiff, and the: judgment of the District Judge must be set aside and that of the Munsif restored, and the plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs throughout. Leave to appeal granted.
S.C/R.K
5. Appeal allowed.