A lessee is not entitled to compensation for improvements made on the leased land upon eviction, as the rights and liabilities of a lessee are governed by Section 108 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Sinha, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of three different suits, which were instituted by the common plaintiffs, except that plaintiff No. 2 of Title suit No. 22/ 74 of 1948 figures as a Pro forma defendant in the other two suits, for eviction of the defendants after notice to quit had been served upon them. The suits have been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. There is no dispute about the plaintiffs title; the dispute is in regard to the right of the plaintiffs landlords to eject these defendants, who claim permanent rights in the lands leased to them, and, in the event of eviction, they claim compensation. As the facts are slightly different in each case, they will have to be stated separately.

3. Second Appeal No. 319 of 1950 arises out of Title Suit No. 22/74 of 1948 and the corresponding Title Appeal No, 91/72 of 1949. One Prabodh Kumar Chandra had executed a kabuliyat in 1921 in favour of the New Birbhum Coal Company Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, for 10 bighas of land, at an annual rental of Rs. 50/-, besides cess including the land in suit. The leasehold of Prabodh Kumar Chandra was recorded in Khata No. 54. Out of this land, he, had verbally surrendered 3.11 acres. The original defendant of this suit had purchased from the said, Prabodh Kumar Chandra 1 bigha 10 kathas of land out of Plot No. 346/365 by a deed of sale dated 2-11-1939, at an annual rental of Rs. 7/8/- besides cess.

4. Second Appeal No. 1510 of 1950 arises out of Title Suit No. 196/91 of 1948/19 and the corresponding Title Appeal No. 239/22 of 1949/50. During October, 1920, one Prasadi Beldar obtained settlement of schedule A lands from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for residential and homestead purposes at an annual rental of Rs. 4/2/-, and had executed a kabuliat on 14-10-1920, in favour of the then landlord. During the cadastral survey, the land was recorded in the name of Prasadi Beldar in khata No. 51. According to the information available with the plaintiffs. Prasadi Beldar had transferred the land to defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, in law the lease was a lease of monthly tenancy liable to be terminated on service of 15 days notice.

5. Second Appeal No. 1974 of 1950 arises out of Title Suit No. 217/92 of 1948 and the corresponding Title Appeal No. 254/23 of 1949/50. In this suit, from the aforesaid Prabodh Kumar Chandra, out of 10 bighas of land of which he had taken settlement as per kabuliyat of 1921, the defendants had purchased 8 kathas of land by a registered sale deed dated 2-11-1939, on the terms and conditions that the defendants would be bound by the Kabuliyat executed by the said Prabodh Kumar Chandra.

6. In each of these cases, according to the plaintiffs, the position of the dafendants was the position of a monthly tenant, and they were liable to be evicted; and notices of eviction had been served upon the different defendants.

7. The defence in each case was that the defendants had acquired permanent rights as per kabuliyats aforementioned and that, according to the terms of the kabuliyats, in case these lands were needed for mining purposes, the defendants were entitled to compensation for the structures built upon the lands.

8. The Courts below have concurrently held that ,no valid lease was created in favour of the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest inas much as there was no lease granted by the landlord; and, as the defendants were paying rents to the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest, the tenancy in favour of these defendants was a tenancy from month to month terminable by 15 days notice to quit. It was also held that the defendants were monthly tenants & their tenancy had been terminated by service of proper notices by the plaintiffs. So far as the question of compensation was concerned, it was held that the defendants were not entitled to any compensation.

9. Second Appeals Nos. 319 and 1974 of 1950 were argued in this Court by Mr. K.D. C