This is an appeal by the Defendants in an action in ejectment. The ancestor of the Defendants executed a kabuliyat in favour of the Plaintiff on the 1st June 1889 in respect of the disputed land which covers an area of six cottas. The original tenant died in 1910. On the 4th April 1911, the Plaintiff commenced this action to eject the Defendants who are his descendants on the ground that as the lease-hold interest was not heritable, they had no right to remain in occupation of the land. The Courts below have decreed the suit. In support of the present appeal, it has been urged that the Plaintiff was a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent and was competent to create as he did a permanent heritable interest in favour of his grantee, although the latter was an under-raiyat. It has not been disputed by the Respondent, and in view of the decision in Hari Mohon v. Atul Krishna(1), it cannot be disputed that this result would follow if the Plaintiff is a raiyat at a fixed rate, but it has been argued that he is not a raiyat of that description.
In the kabuliyat executed by the ancestor of the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff the interest of the latter is described as a kaimi karslia jote. The contention of the Appellant is that the use of the term kaimi indicates that the Plaintiff was a raiyat at a fixed rent. This position has been controverted by the Respondent, and reliance has been placed on the decision in Fazel Sheikh v. Keramuddi Sheikh to show that the term “kaimi” does not necessarily indicate fixity of rent. Reference has also been made to paragraph 15 of the Report of the Rent Law Commission dated the 15th July 1880, published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 21st July 1880. The opinion was expressed by the Commissioners as the result of their enquries, that, in Backergunj, even the interest of a howladar is not held at a fixed rent; and this, indeed, was the view adopted by this Court in the case of Hurro Mohun Mookerjee v. Ranee Lalun Monee Dassee(3). If the interest of a howladar does not imply fixity of rent, it is obvious that a subordinate tenant, whose interest is that of a kaimi karchadar, does not hold at a fixed rent. We are of opinion that the use of the term “kaimi” imports not fixity of rent, but only permanence of occupation of the land, and this view is in accordance with that adopted in Gayratulla v. Girish(4) and Fazel v. Keramuddi. The position, then, is that the Plaintiff was an occupancy raiyat, and was not competent to create in favour of the ancestor of the Defendants, a permanent heritable under-raiyati interest.
It has been finally argued on behalf of the Appellant that as the kabuliyat is described as sthayee karsha kabuliyat, the intention of the grantor whatever restrictions there might have been on his own right, was to create a permanent and heritable interest in the grantee, and, that, notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it is not open to him to question the validity of the grant made by him. In our opinion, there is no force in this contention, for the description of the kabuliyat as “sthayee karsha” kabuliyat does not necessarily imply that the grantee was intended to have a permanent heritable interest. We must take that expression along with the description of the interest of the grantor himself, who was only an occupancy raiyat, and not a raiyat at a fixed rent; he could not consequently be assumed to have created in the grantee a permanent heritable interest in contravention of the express provisions of the law. In this view, no question of estoppel arises.
If, then, the grantee was an under-raiyat, as he must be held to have been, it cannot be disputed that his interest was not heritable. This view is supported by the cases of Arip Mondal v. Barnratan Mondal and Jamini Sundari v. Rajendra Nath. With reference, however, to the decision of the Full Bench in Arip Mondal v. Ramratan Mondal, it has been argued that as the present suit was instituted before the expiry of the agricultural year in which the tenant died, the suit was premature and was bound to fail. We are not prepared to accept this contention as well founded. Assuming that the suit was instituted before the expiry of the agricultural year current at the time when the original under-raiyat died, the proper form of the decree would be one for ejectment against his representatives, the Defendants, but to be executed only on the expiry of that particular agricultural year. It is not disputed that the agricultural year mentioned has expired long ago and that the Defendants have nevertheless continued in occupation of the land. The decree for ejectment made by the Court below must consequently be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.
B.K.M
Appeal dismissed.