A permanent tenancy can be acquired by contract, custom, or grant, and the true inference from the facts and circumstances of the case was that the defendants had a permanent tenancy.

1. The decision of this action in ejectment, and for mense profits, concerning two plots of land, with an area of 4 cottahs or thereabouts, "in premises No. 292/4/1, Upper Chitpore Road," Calcutta, instituted on March 2, 1951, turns on the permanency or non-permanency of the tenancy of the defendants. If the defendants' is a permanent tenancy, the suit is bound to fail. If, however, theirs is a monthly tenancy, without more, coming nowhere near a permanent tenancy, as the plaintiffs contend it is, the suit is bound to succeed. That this is the position in facts and at law is agreed to on all hands. Mr. Dey appearing for the plaintiffs, Mr. Sinha appearing for the tenant-defendants, and I view so the crux of this litigation.

2. NOW to the case made out in the plaint One Manglu Kumvakar was a monthly tenant, according to the Bengali calendar, of the land in controversy here under Kumar Dhirendra Krishna Deb Bahadur, the second plaintiff of this suit. The terms and conditions of such tenancy were - (1) Manglu would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10 a month for one plot, Rs. 5 a month for the other, and Rs. 6 2 annas each quarter on account of rates to the Corporation of Calcutta. (2) he would use the premises so demised for the purpose of residence of himself and his family and for no other. (Vide paragraph 1 of the plaint.)

By an appropriate notice to quit, dated April 29. 1942, corresponding to baisakh 16. 1349 B. S., duly served on Manglu. Kumar Bahadur, the second plaintiff, determined Manglu's tenancy on the expiry of the month of Jaistha 1349 B. S. Manglu however, defied the notice and continued in occupation as before. Worse, Manglu installed Shiva, a deity, in the demised property, set up a temporary shed for housing the said deity, and converted the land in controversy as a place of worship, to which "members of the Hindu public" had free access.

3. ON or about October 4, 1942, manglu died, leaving behind him surviving his wife (Mustt. Kusum and three sons, Gangadhar, Birju and Jahar- defendants all at the inception of the suit on March 2, 1951. During the carriage of the suit, however, died Kusum and Gangadhar, with the result that Birju and Jabar are now the defendants numbered 1 and 2.

4. LORD Shiva, the deity, is the 3rd defendant, separately represented.

July 1, 1946, and something happened - which it is hardly necessary to notice, in view of the way the litigation goes at the trial. But it has to be stated yet, if only to understand what the plaint is like. This day, namely, on July, 1946, by a duly registered indenture of lease, Kumar Bahadur, the second plaintiff, demised unto one Baidya nath Nawn, "292/4/1", (I described the demised promises so, for short), amongst other premises, for a term of 31 years, "on the rents and upon the terms and conditions therein contained". This is why the aforesaid lessess, Baidya nath Nawn, figured as plaintiff No. 1, when the plaint was filed in Court on March 2, 1951. Another devolution again. but during the carriage of the suit. On April 29, 1953, by a registered indenture of assignment, Nawn, the lessee, for consideration therein contained, assigned his leasehold to Kumar bahadur's son, Kamal Krishna Deb, who, therefore, figures a plaintiff No. 1. Thus, the suit, as it stands now, is by son and father. Kamal Krishna and Kumar Bahadur, plaintiffs numbering 1 and 2 respectively.

5. TO continue noticing what is material in the plaint, three more notices were served on the tenants, calling upon them to quit by 1356 B. S. Aswin's end. One such notice is dated September 5, 1949, corresponding to Bhadra 19, 1356 B. S. And the two others are dated September 16, 1949, corresponding to bhadra 30, 1356 B. S. They also yielded little result. Defying them again, the defendants have been continuing in occupation - wrongful occupation, as it is said - of the two demised plots.

6. Hence, the suit for possession, mesne profits, etc.

In view of the manner in which the controversy between